DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2010 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE A 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina, Chairman 

JOSE ́ E. SERRANO, New York 

CIRO RODRIGUEZ, Texas 

C.A. ‘‘DUTCH’’ RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland 

ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia 

NITA M. LOWEY, New York 

LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California 

SAM FARR, California 

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey 

HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky 

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

MARK STEVEN KIRK, Illinois 

KEN CALVERT, California 

NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Obey, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mr. Lewis, as Ranking 

Minority Member of the Full Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees. 

STEPHANIE GUPTA, JEFF ASHFORD, SHALANDA YOUNG, 

JIM HOLM, WILL PAINTER, and ADAM WILSON, 

Staff Assistants 

PART 2 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Page 

Securing the Nation’s Rail and Transit Systems (Part 1) ....................... 1 

Securing the Nation’s Rail and Transit Systems (Part 2) ....................... 95 

Improving the Efficiency of the Aviation Security System .................... 281 

Biometric Identification .................................................................................. 356 

Developing and Transitioning Homeland Security Research 

Products Into Use .......................................................................................... 436 

Member Requests .............................................................................................. 568 

Outside Witness Testimony ............................................................................. 598 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
Av.Sec. 

Transit 

S&T 

Bio. 

Out.Wit. 

Mem.Req. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
PART 2—DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2010 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2010 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE A 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina, Chairman 

JOSE ́ E. SERRANO, New York 

CIRO RODRIGUEZ, Texas 

C.A. ‘‘DUTCH’’ RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland 

ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia 

NITA M. LOWEY, New York 

LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California 

SAM FARR, California 

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey 

HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky 

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

MARK STEVEN KIRK, Illinois 

KEN CALVERT, California 

NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Obey, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mr. Lewis, as Ranking 

Minority Member of the Full Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees. 

STEPHANIE GUPTA, JEFF ASHFORD, SHALANDA YOUNG, 

JIM HOLM, WILL PAINTER, and ADAM WILSON, 

Staff Assistants 

PART 2 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Page 

Securing the Nation’s Rail and Transit Systems (Part 1) ....................... 1 

Securing the Nation’s Rail and Transit Systems (Part 2) ....................... 95 

Improving the Efficiency of the Aviation Security System .................... 281 

Biometric Identification .................................................................................. 356 

Developing and Transitioning Homeland Security Research 

Products Into Use .......................................................................................... 436 

Member Requests .............................................................................................. 568 

Outside Witness Testimony ............................................................................. 598 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

50–121 WASHINGTON : 2009 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin, Chairman 

JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania 

NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington 

ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia 

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio 

PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana 

NITA M. LOWEY, New York 

JOSE ́ E. SERRANO, New York 

ROSA L. DELAURO, Connecticut 

JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia 

JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts 

ED PASTOR, Arizona 

DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina 

CHET EDWARDS, Texas 

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California 

SAM FARR, California 

JESSE L. JACKSON, JR., Illinois 

CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan 

ALLEN BOYD, Florida 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey 

SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR., Georgia 

MARION BERRY, Arkansas 

BARBARA LEE, California 

ADAM SCHIFF, California 

MICHAEL HONDA, California 

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota 

STEVE ISRAEL, New York 

TIM RYAN, Ohio 

C.A. ‘‘DUTCH’’ RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

CIRO RODRIGUEZ, Texas 

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

JERRY LEWIS, California 

C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida 

HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky 

FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia 

JACK KINGSTON, Georgia 

RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New 

Jersey 

TODD TIAHRT, Kansas 

ZACH WAMP, Tennessee 

TOM LATHAM, Iowa 

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama 

JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri 

KAY GRANGER, Texas 

MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

MARK STEVEN KIRK, Illinois 

ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida 

DENNIS R. REHBERG, Montana 

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas 

RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana 

KEN CALVERT, California 

JO BONNER, Alabama 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

TOM COLE, Oklahoma 

BEVERLY PHETO, Clerk and Staff Director 

(II)


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2010 

THURSDAY, MARCH 12, 2009. 

SECURING THE NATION’S RAIL AND TRANSIT SYSTEMS, 

PART 1 

WITNESSES 

JOHN SAMMON, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR TRANSPORTATION 

SECTOR NETWORK MANAGEMENT, TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

W. ROSS ASHLEY, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR OF GRANT PROGRAMS, 

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY 

BILL MORANGE, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND DIRECTOR OF 

SECURITY, NEW YORK METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 

JACK ECKLES, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER FOR SYSTEM SAFETY 

AND SECURITY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN PRICE

Mr. PRICE. Good morning. The subcommittee will come to order. 

Today’s hearing will focus on how well security programs have 

been operating in the rail and transit arena and how effectively 

Federal dollars have been spent to protect the users of these systems from any incidents. These efforts are jointly run by the Transportation Security Administration, which is in charge of surface 

transportation security efforts, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, which is responsible for distributing 

grants annually to rail and transit systems to strengthen the security efforts. 

I am including funds here contained in the recently enacted economic recovery package. To date rail and transit entities have received a total of $1.67 billion in grants for security enhancements, 

including infrastructure protection, deterrence, facility hardening, 

and employee training. 

Worldwide the most common transportation terrorist targets 

have been rail and transit systems. We have been lucky in the 

United States, but others have not been so fortunate. The attacks 

in Madrid, London, Mumbai all come to mind when we discuss rail 

and transit security. 

More recently, on January 24th, the Indian Army recovered two 

powerful bombs near a railway station in the state of Assam. The 

bombs were discovered just 2 days before India’s Republic Day celebration. As a result the Assam government suspended night train 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
2 

operations until after the holiday out of concern for possible sabotage attempts. 

In addition, in Pakistan on February 7th bus drivers began receiving letters from the Taliban threatening attacks by suicide 

bombers if Western devices such as audio and video equipment 

were not removed. 

Finally, on February 18th, in our own country, in my own State 

of North Carolina, we had a bomb scare on Amtrak, February 18th. 

After dogs inspected the train for about 4 hours, the train was 

cleared to move ahead. 

While we have thus far been spared the type of violent attacks 

that occurred elsewhere, we must be ever vigilant in our efforts to 

prevent incidents from occurring in this country. 

Based on the Homeland Security Department’s first Federal 

valuation of mass transit security, however, transit and rail security efforts are not as vigorous as they should be. The report 

showed that 77 percent of the Nation’s largest rail and bus systems 

are not meeting Homeland Security guidelines. By contrast, 96 percent of the airlines are complying with security requirement. This 

isn’t surprising given that when the Transportation Security Administration was created in 2001 it was tasked first of all with federalizing aviation security. Since that time aviation security has received the preponderance of Federal funding and attention. In comparison, other modes of transportation security such as rail and 

transit have remained under the purview of local communities in 

the private sector, receiving yearly grant funds to address their 

highest security risks. 

During Secretary Napolitano’s confirmation hearing, she announced that she would focus on surface transportation security because, as she said, we have done an awful lot in the aviation world. 

Secretary Napolitano followed this up with the secretarial directive 

asking TSA to review the current strategies, plans and programs 

for security of the air, surface and maritime transportation sectors, 

to include a side-by-side comparison of the threat environment resources and personnel devoted to each transportation sector. 

The budget blueprint we received just 2 weeks ago places a renewed emphasis on transportation systems. It is my hope that 

today we can discuss how TSA and FEMA through its grants plan 

to focus on rail and transit security, including what efforts the Department and the largest rail and transit entities are undertaking 

to improve the poor assessments that they have received. 

We have a distinguished panel before us to discuss the security 

threats, vulnerabilities, and needs of our Nation’s rail and transit 

systems. The panel consists of Mr. John Sammon, TSA’s Assistant 

Administrator of Transportation Sector Network Management; Mr. 

Ross Ashley, the Assistant Administrator for Grants of the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency; Mr. William Morange, Deputy 

Executive Director and Director of Security, New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority; and Mr. Jack Eckles, the Deputy Executive Officer, System Safety, Security and Law Enforcement, Los 

Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. We welcome all of you and look forward to your participation here today. 

I will ask Mr. Sammon to begin, followed by Mr. Ashley, Mr. 

Morange, and finally Mr. Eckles. If each of you could summarize 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
3 

your statement in 5 minutes, your full written statement will be 

entered into the record and after all of you have concluded we will 

proceed with questions. Let me turn now to our distinguished ranking member, Harold Rogers, for his opening comments. 

[The information follows:] 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
4 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 6 here 50121A.001
5 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 7 here 50121A.002
6 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 8 here 50121A.003
7 

OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to our 

guests today. 

Recent well-coordinated attacks on rail and mass transit systems 

are a sobering reminder that our homeland security priorities are 

vast and continually changing. The terrorist strikes on the Madrid 

system in 2004, London in 2005, and the recent events in Mumbai 

all raise the question of whether we are effectively addressing 

vulnerabilities within our own rail and transit systems here at 

home, particularly at a time when public transportation ridership 

has risen to its highest level in 52 years. 

DHS has initiated a number of programs over the last 6 years 

to strengthen security measures within the various surface transportation modes. Given the complexity of ownership and variety of 

systems and authorities involved it is no easy task, but it is a challenge that I believe can be overcome through careful coordination, 

analysis, and strategic planning. DHS has many tools at its disposal, and we must utilize them effectively. 

First and foremost, more than $1.5 billion have been provided for 

rail and transit grants since 9/11. However, only a paltry 12.6 percent of that money has actually been spent, leaving $1.3 billion languishing in the coffer. That is unacceptable, but unfortunately 

nothing new to this subcommittee. Billions upon billions in first responder and other DHS grants are left by the wayside every year. 

While I certainly see the value of providing this assistance to our 

State and local partners, I have got to question its impact if they 

are not put towards their intended purpose. 

With only a small fraction of grant funding having been spent, 

I have serious concerns about whether we have made any measurable dent in the security risks of our transit systems. The taxpayers deserve to know what we are buying and for what purpose 

we are buying. 

Second, TSA’s increasing deployments of Visual Intermodal Prevention and Response Teams, VIPeR, to mass transit stations appears to be a promising sign. It is my hope that these teams of law 

enforcement agents and canine teams are deterring those who 

would target rail and mass transit stations. TSA also appears to 

be honing in on the threat to rail shipments of hazardous materials 

with the issuance of new, improved regulations, most notably to establish a chain of custody for such materials. Again these are good 

signs, but are these efforts being coordinated with approved security plans as well as the available grant funding. We want to know 

that. 

Third, the resource that pulls all this together is the TSA surface 

transportation inspectors. Their recent assessment of the Nation’s 

largest transit systems reveal that only 23 percent demonstrated 

satisfactory security mechanisms and processes. That tells me that 

there are big gaps to fill that we are not addressing with either the 

grants or the VIPeR teams. 

While it is evident that securing these transportation modes is 

extremely challenging, there must be effective ways to provide sufficient security without unduly hindering the free flow of passengers and commerce. 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
8 

To help us address this issue we have with us some very experienced professionals from two of the Nation’s largest transit systems. Gentlemen, we thank you for being here. We look forward to 

hearing your thoughts and ideas and hopefully some suggestions 

that we can take seriously. 

I also look forward to hearing from Mr. Sammon of TSA, Mr. 

Ashley of FEMA on how DHS is working with its State and local 

partners to better secure the transit systems that on average make 

more than 27 million passenger trips a day across our great Nation. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to today’s discussions. 

[The information follows:] 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
9 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 13 here 50121A.004
10 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 14 here 50121A.005
11 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 15 here 50121A.006
12 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Sammon, please proceed. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF JOHN SAMMON

Mr. SAMMON. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Price, Ranking Member Rogers, distinguished members of the subcommittee, 

and my colleagues from FEMA, New York, and Los Angeles. I am 

pleased to be here today to discuss progress by the Transportation 

Security Administration on rail and mass transit security grant 

programs. 

The transit grant program is an important part of TSA’s Intel 

driven, risk-based, counterterrorism transit security strategy. 

TSA’s counterterrorism transit strategy is focused on making high 

risk transit systems less attractive targets and more secure, less 

attractive through forward leaning visible deterrents such as VIPeRs, canines, mobile screening, security surges, trained front line 

employees and an aware public and behavioral detection capabilities, more secure through intrusion and anomaly detection, access 

control, and facility hardening. 

TSA’s transit strategy begins with active security partner engagement. Peer advisers, two-way communication, best practice 

and intelligence sharing, followed by continuous improvement and, 

finally, risk based allocation of grant funding. 

TSA’s grant strategy begins with a regional focus. We believe 

that effective transit security requires an overall regional level of 

security. Manhattan cannot be protected if potential terrorists have 

free access to transit systems in New Jersey. The grant process in 

the past had mostly to do with dividing up the pie and individual 

agencies selecting projects that they separately deemed appropriate. TSA has shaped the process to begin with intelligence insights, focused resources on high risk agencies, give priority to low 

cost, high return security measures and use regional transit security working groups to identify, discuss and determine regional priorities. 

Security partner input has helped shape this process in many 

important ways. Two weeks after I started my job at TSA in the 

summer of 2006, I went to New York to meet Bill Morange and his 

staff for his transit security insights. Bill stressed the training, 

drills, canine teams and mobile bag screening were common practices on the MTA. The same month I traveled to Houston to ask 

Chief Tom Lambert how we might set up a transit advisory group 

for TSA composed of key transit law enforcement chiefs. He said, 

hire somebody who has walked in our shoes to lead the transit effort, and we did. We hired Paul Lennon, Jack Eckles’ predecessor 

in Los Angeles, as the general manager of transit. Paul is right 

over here in the corner. We also hired Sonia Proctor, former chief 

with Amtrak and we also hired Fred Godeen, Vice President, Safety and Risk Management, from Washington Metro. 

Subsequent conversations with Chief Lambert created a way to 

streamline training grants to encourage more transit agencies to 

release front line employees for training classes. New Jersey Transit approved champion getting behavioral assessment training on a 

DHS approved list for transit officers. The Los Angeles Sheriff’s 

Department fostered a regional versus agency view of transit security priorities. Chief John O’Connor from Amtrak developed the opVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:01 Jul 21, 2009 Jkt 050121 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\50121P2.XXX 50121P2

CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
13 

erating agreement protocols to allow increased Federal and local 

VIPeR coordination exercises. Executive Director Bill Morange and 

Chief Jim Hall from New York and Chief Dan Finkelstein of Los 

Angeles are among the fine group of law enforcement chiefs advising TSA on a regular basis. 

In summary, TSA’s transit strategy evolves through and is better 

from constant interaction with our security partners and advisers. 

It is designed to make terrorist attack planning more difficult and 

the targets less attractive, and it is designed to make the facilities 

and systems more secure. Transit grants are an important part of 

that strategy. The grant process is an important tool to support a 

transit security strategy, and all of us at DHS want it to be as successful as possible. We look forward to working with our partners 

at FEMA to award the additional grant funds provided in the Recovery Act as expeditiously as possible to put more Americans to 

work securing our transit systems and to make this grant process 

as streamlined and as effective for security as we can. 

Thank you, and I will be happy to answer any questions you may 

have. 

[The statement of Mr. Sammon follows:] 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
14 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 20 here 50121A.007
15 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 21 here 50121A.008
16 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 22 here 50121A.009
17 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 23 here 50121A.010
18 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 24 here 50121A.011
19 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 01 here 50121A.012
20 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Sammon. 

Mr. Ashley. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF W. ROSS ASHLEY

Mr. ASHLEY. Good morning Chairman Price, Ranking Member 

Rogers, and members of the Subcommittee. I am Ross Ashley. I 

serve as the Assistant Administrator of the FEMA Grant Programs 

Directorate. Thank you all for the opportunity to appear before you 

today to discuss our efforts to secure our Nation’s transit systems. 

As you know, FEMA is the Department of Homeland Security’s 

lead agency assisting State, local and tribal jurisdictions and regional authorities to prepare, respond to, and recover from natural 

disasters, terrorist acts, and other catastrophic events. 

As part of that mission the Grant Programs Directorate in partnership with TSA administers a number of programs designed to 

enhance the security of surface transportation systems throughout 

the country. One such program is the Transit Security Grant Program, or TSGP. TSGP has evolved since its inception in 2005, and 

I would like to highlight a couple of the process improvements that 

have taken place. Let’s talk for a moment about the risk-based 

process. 

Practically 90 percent of the funds that have been mentioned 

earlier today have been applied towards the top eight Tier 1 transit 

systems in the country. This indicates the Department’s commitment to provide necessary funding to those urban areas with the 

greatest risk. 

In order to truly identify those high risk transit systems over the 

past few years, the Department has continued to make improvements to the risk methodology that we use. Four years ago the Department, for the first time, distributed transit security funds 

using multiple risk factors. Each subsequent year the Department 

has applied a more mature and consistent threat and risk analysis 

in determining allocations for those later year funds. Also, we have 

considerably improved our processes in terms of outreach which is 

another successful component of the Transit Security Grant Program. As you all have noticed in her recent action directives, one 

such directive is related to engagement with our State, local and 

private sector partners. The Secretary is fully committed to conducting regular outreach with these partners. The owners and operators of infrastructure are partners in this process and are vital 

to the well-being in the States and the urban areas which they 

serve. Thus, it is imperative for transit systems to be incorporated 

into a regional preparedness planning effort and to have regional 

strategies. 

The Department believes that a regional approach is critical to 

overall preparedness. These strategies are intended to integrate individual agencies’ needs into a regional perspective in order to 

identify transportation security vulnerabilities, and to focus Federal, State, and local funding. 

This year in fiscal year 2009, the Transit Security Grant Program continues to build on the progress made in the past to institutionalize the risk-based regional approach used for the allocation 

of transit security funding. 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
21 

One last successful component of this program is the Department’s collaborative efforts which Mr. Sammon also mentioned earlier. From the development of program guidance to the application 

process, FEMA works and coordinates with numerous governmental and nongovernmental entities to ensure an appropriate 

level of subject matter expertise, and to solicit feedback from Federal, State, local and industry partners. 

FEMA works with a number of DHS components, including TSA, 

the Office of Infrastructure Protection, the United States Coast 

Guard and the Science and Technology Directorate, as well as the 

Department of Transportation’s Federal Transportation Administration and Federal Railroad Administration. 

We have also worked closely with State and local transportation 

officials from across the country, as well as industry groups, including the Association of American Railroads and the American Public 

Transportation Association. 

Before I conclude my statement, I would like to take a moment 

to illustrate how the successful evolution of this program through 

the use of risk-based allocations, outreach and collaboration has 

impacted real transit agencies and effectively mitigated existing 

and future threats. 

Transit agencies in Philadelphia in fiscal year 2007 used funds 

on a regional project to create a transit specific intelligence analysis center. The center allows officials from Philadelphia and New 

Jersey to share information and analyze potential threats, allowing 

officials to take appropriate mitigation and prevention activities. 

In fiscal year 2006, Portland’s Tri-Met system created and began 

to administer an extensive front line employee training program. 

Through this effort, Portland’s transit employees are trained on a 

recurring basis on security and IED awareness and principles of 

behavior assessment screening. 

Most recently and very importantly, on November 23, 2008, TSA 

informed FEMA that a potential threat was identified against New 

York City’s subway system. New York requested financial assistance for the rapid buildup of its police presence in the subway system, including deployment of specialized teams. In less than two 

hours the day before Thanksgiving, FEMA released over $23 million in previously awarded fiscal year 2008 Transit Security Grant 

Program funds for New York in support of this operational need. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes 

my testimony. Thank you and your staff for your support of 

FEMA’s Grant Programs Directorate and the Department of Homeland Security. I am happy to answer any questions you might have. 

[The statement of Mr. Ashley follows:] 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
22 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 31 here 50121A.013
23 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 32 here 50121A.014
24 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 33 here 50121A.015
25 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 34 here 50121A.016
26 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 35 here 50121A.017
27 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 36 here 50121A.018
28 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 37 here 50121A.019
29 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 38 here 50121A.020
30 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 39 here 50121A.021
31 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 40 here 50121A.022
32 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 41 here 50121A.023
33 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 42 here 50121A.024
34 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Now we turn to the leaders from our 

major systems, beginning with Mr. Morange. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF WILLIAM MORANGE

Mr. MORANGE. Good morning, Chairman Price, Vice Chairman 

Serrano and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Bill 

Morange. I am the Deputy Executive Director, Director of Security 

for the MTA. 

I joined the MTA in 2003 after having served 39 years-plus in 

the New York City Police Department where I retired as the Chief 

of the Organized Crime Control Bureau. Before that I was the 

Chief of Patrol and served as the Incident Commander down at 

Ground Zero on 9/11. 

My role in the MTA is to ensure that the actions we are taking 

in light of September 11th, Madrid, London and Mumbai and other 

threats, prepared our organization to respond to terrorist and other 

emergency incidents and to provide as secure an environment for 

our customers as is humanly possible. I will talk about that and 

our relationship with the Department of Homeland Security and 

the Federal Government and what other security needs we look for 

as we go forward. 

As you well know, the MTA is the largest transportation provider 

in the Western Hemisphere. We provide over 8 and a half million 

subway, rail and bus rides each day in the New York Metro area, 

roughly one-third of all transit rides nationally. Approximately 

900,000 vehicles cross our seven bridges and two tunnels each day, 

carrying over 1.4 million passengers. 

Certainly 9/11 was a traumatic event that happened in the New 

York Metropolitan region and our system was directly affected. But 

some of the things that we have learned from that day and as we 

move forward we should continue to do. Since then we have done 

many things internally and also externally in hardening and operational within the system. 

Some of things that I do like to talk about that have been 

positives are working along with TSA and all the emergency drills 

that we have undertaken. I am a firm believer that the emergency 

drills are probably the most important thing that we can do. Six 

weeks prior to 9/11, we did a drill, and the OEM, Office of Emergency Management, for New York City at that time was in 7 World 

Trade. And the biggest thing about the drills was not everybody 

knowing what everybody else does, but everybody gets to know who 

is who. And when you respond up on the scene, Bill knows Mr. 

Price, Mr. Price knows Bill, and it is a lot easier to perform your 

function. And on that day we lost a lot of senior leadership, but we 

were able to move and do everything that we had to do to further 

protect the city. It was probably the first time I was really acquainted with the MTA, because when you come from a police department of 40,000 people you would never realize that we would 

need a lot of help to evacuate the city. That was the first time we 

called for buses and we used New Jersey Transit and we used 

other police departments from around the area. 

The other programs I would like to talk about is see something, 

say something, keeping all our customers and people aware of what 

is happening out there and to make sure that they have a way to 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
35 

contact us immediately and we have a way of responding back to 

let them now what the outcome was. I think the more informed 

public that you have, the better off you are. And I always say that 

the riding public is your best eyes and ears that are out there, because every day if you get in a train they sit in the same seat, take 

the same train, they know what belongs and what doesn’t belong. 

Another thing that we were able to accomplish through TSA and 

DHS was the training of our front line employees in which we feel 

is very important that they are also aware. Because they, like our 

customers know what belongs and what doesn’t belong in those 

systems. 

I would like to talk about before we go further, proposed recommendations that we feel will improve the process. Going forward, the MTA would like to emphasize a number of points that 

we believe will improve the Federal process. One, we believe the 

regional transit security program should broaden emphasis areas 

and have identified several areas where we think Federal funds are 

necessary. Consequence management, projects to enhance egress, 

lighting and signage, interoperable communication for our police 

and regional partners, backup power redundancy, and chemical, biological and radiological detection devices, which we have some deployed already in our system. 

We look for consistency in the grant guidelines from year to year 

which will allow us to do more effective long-range project planning 

and better address our transit agency’s 5-year capital security 

plans. 

We need flexibility to use Federal funds for design project management and construction management tasks conducted by inhouse forces. Presently these tasks are reimbursable only if they 

are done by third-party contractors. We feel that our in-house 

forces know the system better than others, and also we could do 

it at a lot less of a price and use the rest of those Federal funds 

for other areas that are well needed. 

We need flexibility to fund all in-house flagging and track excess 

work on straight time. As of now it is in lieu of overtime because 

we are not allowed to use that with Federal funds, we are not allowed to put in for that. We support the creation of a one-stop 

shopping mechanism for better coordination between FEMA and 

TSA. The current process requires one agency to approve the funds 

and the other to approve the scope of the project. This causes delay 

in approving the grant package every year. In fact, we are still 

awaiting approval for funding under the fiscal year 2008 funding 

measure. 

We recommend that our annual grant guidance be issued before 

the Federal fiscal year. This would enable grantees to address their 

security-related needs prior to the publication. Grantees would be 

able to submit applications at the beginning of the Federal fiscal 

year once appropriations are known. This would accelerate the review and approval process by TSA and FEMA and enable the transit agencies to advance their projects in a more timely manner. 

Seven, we would like to emphasize the critical role that the State 

has in the grant process and encourage a more active role for the 

State administrative agency. 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
36 

In developing the regional security strategy, we would like to 

propose the State SAA be formally part of the Transit Security 

Grant Program and chair regional transit security meetings, which 

we do now up in the New York area between New Jersey Transit, 

the MTA, NYPD, the Connecticut DOT, Westchester County. 

And finally, the funding sources under the TSGP process are designed to support the security needs of the transit agency and their 

primary law enforcement provider. Allocations that are directed to 

local municipal law enforcement agencies have the potential for a 

negative impact on the core objectives of the grant program. 

Thank you, and I would be happy to answer any questions that 

you may have. 

[The statement of Mr. Morange follows:] 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
37 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 49 here 50121A.025
38 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 50 here 50121A.026
39 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 51 here 50121A.027
40 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 52 here 50121A.028
41 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 53 here 50121A.029
42 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 54 here 50121A.030
43 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 55 here 50121A.031
44 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Eckles. 

Mr. ECKLES. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

subcommittee. Thank you for this opportunity to speak before you 

on matters that are very important regarding the Transit Security 

Grant Program. 

The L.A. MTA is the third largest transit agency in the United 

States, and we serve multiple roles as a regional transportation 

planner, the coordinator, the designer, the builder, the operator of 

the country’s most populous county in the United States, more 

than 13 million people. One-third of California’s population live 

and work within our 1,433 square mile service area. 

Allow me to say that Secretary Napolitano stated much of what 

we would like to have happen with this DHS and TSA in her first 

action directive, as quoted by the chairman, under the State, local 

and tribal integration, immediately plan for an accelerated process 

for soliciting and collecting input from our local partners on how 

to improve the programs and processes of DHS. 

A brief overview of our program to date is that we have received approximately $241⁄2 million of the over $1 billion that has been allocated nationwide. The Transportation Security Working Group in 

the greater Los Angeles region had its initial growing pangs at the 

beginning, but this group has developed into an extremely cohesive 

and cooperative organization. We honestly feel these funds have 

helped to obtain some initial successes in addressing capital investment needs for hardening our critical infrastructure and the extensive creation and implementation of transit-specific awareness and 

response training and exercises. 

It is important for me to point out that this grant program is 

considered by our group to be vital in order to better secure our 

systems, especially given the current economy in the Nation, in 

which most agencies are struggling to meet basic operating expenses. 

I find that the funding for the Homeland Security grant program 

is critical for the protection of this Nation’s vital transit infrastructure, the public transit agency, and our riders. This grant program 

has allowed our agency to develop security programs we would not 

have been able to obtain any other way. We believe we have spent 

the taxpayers’ money in the best possible way within the restrictions and limitations given to us. However, we believe it can be and 

should be better. 

Allow me to provide a chronology of events that have developed 

over time that illustrate our working group situation, but also let 

me say that while I do not want to engage in attribution of areas 

where the process has seemed to have gotten in the way of 

progress, I do believe that the Subcommittee must have a clear understanding of how certain procedures impact our ability to execute 

the intent of Congress as we strive to deliver these Homeland Security grant funded projects and programs in our local areas. There 

is only one purpose behind my testimony before this subcommittee, 

and that is to contribute to improving the program for the people 

we serve. 

I will start out by saying that in fiscal year 2006 there was clearly undefined and confusing roles and responsibilities. Project reVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:01 Jul 21, 2009 Jkt 050121 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\50121P2.XXX 50121P2

CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
45 

view and approval is cumbersome and difficult. This two-grant authorization notice, to want to approve your grant and then somewhere down the road after multiple reviews you get a second grant 

that says, oh, by the way, you can now spend down on it. 

2007 was a pretty good year for us in terms of the grant process. 

However, the supplemental funding was fraught with problems. 

TSA’s interference with our contracted law enforcement agency by 

dealing with them directly and granting them part of the supplemental funds in advance. During our investment justification approval meeting TSA made an impromptu 8–hour challenge to our 

transit security document, which they already possessed, already 

understood, but never read. 

Constant reviews and rewrites by a, quote, review panel, who nobody has explained to me to this date who that is, but I only talk 

to one person and that is a grant analyst. I don’t talk to anybody 

in a review panel. Requiring first simplification and then they come 

back and ask for more information and then they come back and 

ask for clarification of the information we have given them. 

TSA was supposed to have held a secure briefing in 2007 after 

everybody had submitted their application for a security clearance, 

but they failed to process the application. They then turned the 

briefing, which people worked around their schedules because the 

American public transportation annual conference was scheduled 

that same week. It turned into a self promotion session about how 

ask us about how great TSA was doing with the grant program. 

TSA didn’t even bother to provide a sanitized version of the briefing to the agency since they couldn’t get them their clearances. 

TSA official answering questions about grant guidance stated the 

grant guidance did not need to be followed and that TSA would 

take care of each unique situation. 

TSA responded to a question about cost overruns for operational 

packages and the transit agency responsibility for the cost of those 

overruns. They replied, it would simply not be a problem. However, 

the FEMA member in attendance countered that in an audit the 

transit agency would be accountable for the overruns for the guidance and the language of the grant needed to be changed. It further stated only an information bulletin can make that change. 

Inaccurate grant authorization notices for amounts not requested, in one case to $1.6 million above and beyond what the 

agency asked for. 

At another TSA meeting that turned into 6 hours of what training members of our region’s agencies had received regarding terrorism awareness. They wanted names of courses, numbers of employees, including front line and other personnel, dates, where the 

future plans for training are, who is teaching and planning these 

courses, what is the sustainment plan for training without any 

prior notice that they were going to request this information. 

Now mind you, I have an agency that has over 9,200 employees. 

I can only imagine what New York’s employee status is. This was 

followed by questioning all of the region’s projects except the operational packages, which were preapproved. 

TSA was asked questions about operational package equipment 

was not eligible according to that grant guidance. Their response 

was to unilaterally decide that it would come out of the base 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
46 

amount of 2007, which the agency had already divvied up and submitted their investment justifications with their budgets. We had 

to go back and review them, rewrite them, and reallocate to cover 

the equipment costs. 

In 2008, TSA decided that their member was going to be a cochair. In our region we don’t have a chairman. We have a cooperative working group that spreads the dollars amount and allocations 

based upon project needs and demands of the regional security 

strategy as dictated by TSA. 

On top of that they included by name the two contracted law enforcement agencies in our region to sit as members at our table and 

authorized them to draw down on the funds as a member, further 

diluting the allotment of money we get. 

They also authorized them to be the approver of our agency’s security plans. Our contracted law enforcement agency is now the 

one who has to approve our security plans. They also had to certify 

and review all of our projects. The operational packages submitted 

made the law enforcement agency a sub-grantee recipient of the 

transit agency, thus making us responsible for what the law enforcement agency does or fails to do. 

TSA went on to state the law enforcement agencies didn’t have 

to approve the agency’s plan and that we could just simply line 

through ‘‘approve’’ and write in ‘‘concur’’. But to this date they have 

failed to give us an information bulletin to that effect. 

Also, 2008 was the year that they developed a scheme to group 

projects, and of course their training and their operational package 

were at the top of that list given the highest point value. And those 

in infrastructure protection and prevention were put at the lowest 

category and given the lowest score. So if you didn’t submit a 

project that met some numerical threshold, which we were never 

told or explained about, our project wouldn’t be approved and our 

money would be allocated to another region. 

2009, we went to the after action conference that TSA put on in 

the hopes that we could clarify and explain what our problems with 

the grant process were. They had scheduled it so far down into the 

system the grant guidance had already been written and nothing 

had changed in the 2009 grant guidance. Even though the entire 

year of 2008 we had explained the problems we had faced, nothing 

was changed. 

This year they added a grant guidance language and included an 

agency requirement for the sustainment of the operational package 

5 years beyond the grant. When we went on requesting clarification 

as to what that sustainment plan requirements were, our law enforcement agency, our contracting law enforcement agency receives 

the e-mail saying, the expectation is that the knowledge and capability would be sustained in some way for the transit agency and 

transit security in anti-terrorism although not strictly required. 

However, when we requested that information bulletin for that 

kind of clarification, none has been or was forthcoming. That is not 

to say we don’t consider this program important. Otherwise I would 

not be before you today. 

We do have recommendations and I believe these recommendations are important. I heard it said that there is contact with peers. 

Well, I also heard my commander and my contract law enforcement 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
47 

name mentioned. To this date there has been no contact with me, 

the transit agency representative to have that kind of input, that 

kind of peer. I believe the recommendations should be an industry 

peer, not a law enforcement peer, review of the grant guidance development from year to year. 

I believe they should utilize the threat and vulnerability assessment that Congress paid for in every agency. To date we have not 

been able to utilize that threat and vulnerability assessment to develop projects that effectively reduce our risk as determined by the 

audit. Detection response and recovery projects, including chem/bio, 

should be included. 

As stated earlier, maintenance and administration costs hardly 

begin to touch the costs that we incur to manage these projects. 2.5 

percent does not come close to anything that it costs our agency to 

manage this cumbersome and difficult process. 

Transparency and grant allocations. They say there is a riskbased empirical formula, but I don’t supposedly have the clearance 

to know what that is. Ladies and gentlemen, I am a lieutenant 

colonel in the United States Army Reserve. I have a top secret, sensitive compartmentalized information clearance. And I can’t find 

this out? We want more transparency, ladies and gentlemen. 

Grant program management, it should be either TSA or FEMA, 

not both. It has created a tremendous amount of confusion and a 

tremendous amount of delay. More predictability and flexibility in 

implementing priorities, that goes along primarily with the industry peer review panel, decreased emphasis on operating initiatives. 

We have an open system, and we need to harden it, and we can’t 

buy enough people to secure it. So we need to implement those 

things that the threat vulnerability assessment says we need to expedite the approval process. 

Ladies and gentlemen, we have one agency in our Transit Working Group that is still waiting on its approval for a 2006 grant because they keep getting the grant number wrong. We clarified last 

October going back to their after-action review, we got many of 

those cleared up right then and there, but we still have problems. 

To date, the 2008 investment justifications, some of them are going 

on their fourth review. 

We also believe that TSA should only contact the transit agency’s 

designated representative. The investment justification process 

should be more streamlined. I have over the years of this grant development one of my project managers having been in the process 

long enough wrote 54 pages of an investment justification hoping 

to avoid write, rewrites, clarifications and drawing this process out 

longer than it needs to be. Unfortunately, it hasn’t worked. 

Lastly, we all know the 9/11 Commission Report cited failure of 

imagination as one of the most significant shortcomings in security 

before the terrorist attacks. Also the Office of Homeland Security’s 

mission statement for the transportation system sector states, 

‘‘Continuously improve the risk posture of Nation’s transportation 

system.’’ And to further this position DHS’s own sector specific 

plan, ‘‘Describe the security framework that will enable the sector 

stakeholders to make effective and appropriate risk-based security 

and resource allocation decisions.’’ 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
48 

Our region supports these ideals and seeks to enable them in a 

flexible and manageable way. We know and understand the asymmetrical threat we face; we in our own system know this best. 

As an experienced battlefield commander myself having served in 

Iraq, I know the threat we face as do many others who work in our 

industry. We need to be allowed to influence our agency security 

destiny with the funds the American people have given us. 

In summary, I would like to say that to my agency and our region would like to see a reformed Transit Security Grant Program 

that encourages and supports imagination and innovation at the 

local level in executing the intent of Congress, in securing public 

transit as a national critical infrastructure asset. In order to 

achieve this goal we need maximum flexibility and discretion at the 

local level to operate within a broad, but well-defined program and 

grant guidance from TSA. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be happy to answer any of your 

questions. 

[The statement of Mr. Eckles follows:] 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
49 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 67 here 50121A.032
50 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 68 here 50121A.033
51 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 69 here 50121A.034
52 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 70 here 50121A.035
53 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 71 here 50121A.036
54 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 72 here 50121A.037
55 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 73 here 50121A.038
56 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 74 here 50121A.039
57 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 75 here 50121A.040
58 

AWARD AND FUNDING DELAYS

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. We obviously have a great deal to talk 

about. 

Since 2002 and including the recently enacted economic recovery 

package, Congress has appropriated a total of $1.67 billion for 

mass transit and passenger rail grants. These funds are used for 

security enhancements, including infrastructure protection, deterrence, facility hardening, employee training, and other purposes. 

There are numerous statutory requirements placed on TSA and 

FEMA as to how quickly this funding must be awarded and how 

quickly it must be provided to transit and passenger rail agencies. 

However, once the award has been made, once the funds are obligated, this funding is commonly sitting around for up to 2 years 

before it is spent. We have heard a good deal of testimony this 

morning to that effect together with some of the reasons for this 

delay and some of the frustrations that accompany this delay. $130 

million, or 93 percent, remains unspent from 2006 rail and transit 

awards. Over $268 million remains from 2007, that is 99 percent, 

and so forth. 

[The information follows:] 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
59 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 77 here 50121A.041
60 

The Subcommittee has heard repeatedly from transit entities, including those this morning, about not just the slowness of decisions 

being made but the extraordinary difficulty of coming to agreement 

with TSA about specific expenditures, and priorities, and criteria 

and so forth. We need to understand this more adequately and figure out how to get around these problems, just to put it mildly. 

There is one thing that the 9/11 Act did which was designed to 

expedite the awarding of grants. We required in the 9/11 Act that 

these awards be made directly to transit and passenger rail agencies instead of being administered through the States. I am hearing 

Mr. Morange say this morning that perhaps that is irrelevant, and 

in fact there are other good reasons for involving the States more 

directly in this process. So maybe that statutory requirement or action was misguided. 

Anyway, I want to ask all of you in turn to address this. Mr. 

Ashley, Mr. Sammon, can you please explain to the Subcommittee 

why it takes so long for transit and passenger rail agencies to 

spend their grant awards? How do you account for the delay? How 

do you explain that and what are you doing or what can you do 

to make sure that the dollars are distributed more expeditiously? 

What kind of due diligence are you trying to exercise to make sure 

this doesn’t become just an endless morass of shifting criteria, 

standards, nontransparent processes and all the rest that we have 

heard described here today? How can we solve this problem? 

The Subcommittee has heard a lot of complaints, persistent complaints from a variety of transit and rail agencies about restrictions 

on how grant funds can be used, and on uncertain shifting signals 

about how grant funds can be used. Entities have complained that 

they must continue to spend funds for training when their employees are already up to speed. Others have complained they are not 

allowed to use funds for chemical or biological sensors in their facilities, although their own assessment is that that is the primary 

need. Mr. Eckles has outlined some of these frustrations. And then 

finally let me do ask about the decision to not have the States any 

longer as the grantee. Has this change had any effect in allowing 

the dollars to be spent more expeditiously? Are there other reasons 

for having the State involved, as Mr. Morange I think suggested? 

Let’s start with our Administrator. 

STATE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENT ISSUE

Mr. ASHLEY. I will start from an overall perspective, from a grant 

management perspective. First, let me comment on the State Administrative Agency (SAA) issue. This is actually the first year that 

the dollars will go directly to the transit agencies. This will be a 

new process. Previously, the dollars had gone through 56 State Administrative Agencies, and the transit entities would then be the 

subgrantees. 

That inherently, in some people’s view, created a delay in the 

process, because the funding would go to the State, the State would 

subgrant, and that process created delays. 

Mr. PRICE. I must say though that none of the accounts we have 

heard this morning cite that. 

Mr. ASHLEY. No, sir, but that would add to the overall delays 

from previous years. Although it makes a lot of sense when you are 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
61 

looking at the regional collaboration. FEMA and TSA would both 

support the continued use of that process. For the last two years, 

the appropriations laws have mandated timelines that have been 

met, both in terms of getting the guidance out and making awards. 

We have consistently done that over the last two years. 

In previous years, in 2006 and such, there were extensive delays 

in getting both the grant guidance as well as the awards out. So 

there have been improvements in that area as well. 

DRAWDOWN OF FUNDS

As far as the overall drawdown of funds, when you look at 

awards being made and then funds actually being depleted out of 

the Federal treasury, there are a number of issues that surround 

that. Some are at the local level, some at the Federal level. Let me 

talk a little bit about the Federal bottlenecks and what we are 

doing on our end. 

They primarily reside with two major issues. One is ensuring our 

role as the fiduciary agent of the dollars to ensure that the dollars 

are being spent according to good practices, and that we have detailed budget worksheets—all of the fiduciary responsibilities that 

we have in place to ensure that the taxpayers’ dollars are being 

spent effectively. That is part of it—having those detailed budgets 

and all of that before projects are authorized to spend down. 

HISTORIC PRESERVATION REQUIREMENTS

The second is, the environmental historic preservation requirements on some of the specific projects in all of these grant programs. If you take, for example, projects in New York where just 

about every facility that is going to be modified is greater than 50 

years old, you are talking about an environmental and historic impact statement that must be conducted. Some of those statements 

are very detailed and take a long time to complete. That creates 

delays in the program. 

At the local level, we primarily see the acquisition process. There 

is in every local jurisdiction a different acquisition process that 

takes time to get those monies out the door, and then on a reimbursable basis for those monies to actually be drawn down out of 

the Federal Government. 

That outlines some of the processes. As far as improvements go, 

specifically with the environmental historic preservation, this year 

we have allowed our program analysts at FEMA to take level A 

projects, the first level of EHP projects, and categorically exclude 

EHP from it and allow grantees to be able to draw down on monies 

that do not have environmental impacts. 

Regarding Level B, or the second level of environmental historic 

projects, we allow the program analysts to work directly with our 

NEPA staff at FEMA to collaboratively get these projects rapidly 

through and approved for a drawdown. 

For the third level projects, we have to turn them over to the 

NEPA staff to do the environmental historic impact statements before funds are allowed to draw down. 

When we talk about drawing funds down, if we look at New York 

just as an example here, if we look at the 2006 funds, 96 percent 

of the funds are available to be drawn down today of every dollar 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
62 

that is there. There are a couple of ‘‘cat and dogs’’ projects out 

there. Ninety-two percent of the 2007 and 96 percent of the 2007 

supplemental funds are available today to be drawn down. 

In Los Angeles, or California I should say, in total: 88 percent 

of the funding in 2006, 60 percent of 2007, and 61 percent of the 

2007 supplemental funds are available today to be drawn down. 

You can see they are differing across different transit agencies and 

there are a number of different reasons for each one. A lot of the 

California stuff is tied up in FEMA’s EHP process. 

TSA ROLE

Mr. PRICE. As I understand it, 90 percent of complaints, have to 

do with TSA, not FEMA. So the extent the factors you cite loom 

large in your own mind wasn’t mentioned in any of the specific accounts we heard, but I do think we need to put the TSA role into 

perspective here. That appears to be where most of the delay is occurring. 

TSA MODIFICATIONS TO GRANT LANGUAGE

Mr. SAMMON. Thank you very much for this opportunity. The 

language for the grants in 2008 was modified to go to the agencies 

and further modified in 2009 to go directly to transit agencies. In 

2008, TSA wanted to establish the most transparent process we 

could. So, we did the grant guidance, there is a lot of verbiage behind it, but basically, this chart shows you the types of projects. 

Because we anticipated Congress saying ‘‘get the States out of the 

process’’ and have agencies competing directly agency-to-agency, we 

wanted to make clear what the security priorities were from an effectiveness basis, not only from a security effectiveness but also a 

cost effectiveness basis. We ranked them one through six and each 

category has a score. So, anybody can look at this and say here is 

a category and the score. 

SECURITY RANKINGS

Separately we have security rankings for the top 150 agencies, 

and as protected SSI we provide those agencies with security 

rankings. Mr. Morange knows his, in Los Angeles they know theirs, 

and the other agencies know theirs. On a very transparent, simple 

basis, an agency can look at a project and make decisions where 

they think they will be in terms of putting up fences in bus yards 

versus where they might be in terms of training employees, or as 

Bill said, in terms of public awareness. It is very simple, very 

straightforward, and very transparent. 

INTERACTION WITH THE TRANSIT COMMUNITY

In our interaction with the transit community we did add in the 

three largest jurisdictions in the country where the security agency 

is providing the boots on the ground, every day security—NYPD, 

Chicago Police Department and Los Angeles Sheriff Department. I 

know Mr. Eckles refers to him as a security contractor, but Sheriff 

Baca with the Sheriff’s Department for Los Angeles County is a little bit more than a security contractor. We included those folks at 

the table because we wanted to make sure, from a security standVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:01 Jul 21, 2009 Jkt 050121 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\50121P2.XXX 50121P2

CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
63 

point, that we were getting the best day-to-day, law enforcement 

view of what was happening down in the subway, on the bus lines, 

and whatever else, at the table for that discussion in terms of what 

really are the regional priorities. Some people work with it, some 

not. But, we feel, from a security standpoint, that the people who 

are the boots on the ground, front-line, every day, day in, day out, 

people who are securing the subway, have an opinion of what is important to do their job every day. We included those folks and 

made the process better. In terms of the specifics that Mr. Eckles 

is talking about, my staff could address those. I do not know those 

personally. 

But, the idea was to make it as transparent as possible and to 

let people choose. In terms of the biological/chemical detection systems that was taken out in 2008 by other folks, it is back in this 

year’s application and they are qualified things that people can 

look at and ask for. But, rather than go through some mysterious 

process, we use this. It is available on the TSA Web site where 

anybody can see it. It is simple as possible to say how should I 

apply for these monies and we made it as straightforward and simple as it could be. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. I am going to ask our two transit representatives to respond very briefly. Assuming that this line of 

questioning will be pursued by Mr. Rogers and others, this will not 

be the only chance to further this exchange. Mr. Morange, if you 

could just respond briefly, particularly to the point about the 

State’s place in the process. 

Mr. MORANGE. We believe—we have found, you know, working 

along with all the other partners that we have up in the New York 

region, that if the State would pull us all together and be the guidance and, you know, not be the dictator of what is going to be done, 

but they would be the guidance to come along with a regional security strategy—because what we found out in the past is, like with 

the NYPD—I have spoke with the NYPD commissioner on many 

occasions. We have partnered up on things that we have done. 

But we have found out that one agency would be putting in cameras here, we would be putting cameras in here. Learning the technology and finding out what is the right way to do this, what is 

the best way to put these systems in. As you well know, everybody 

went into an integrated electronic system that they wanted. The 

Port Authority had their own, the NYPD had their own, and we 

had our own. And we could have got more out of it if we all would 

have just combined our efforts and got together. 

And I really believe that the State should be part of that process 

to bring us together and come out with a security strategy that we 

could go to TSA and say, this is our strategy, this is what we would 

like to do. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Eckles. 

Mr. ECKLES. Our State representatives have been very supportive of our region’s actions and our decisions in following our 

strategic plan that we were required to develop. They don’t dictate 

to us what we should be doing. They don’t hinder us, and they 

haven’t hindered us. They have been a great advocate and a great 

representative in trying to deal with TSA and FEMA when we run 

into obstacles or problems. 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
64 

In terms of a delay in funding, we haven’t found that the State 

has created any kind of delay in funding once it has been approved 

at TSA. 

Mr. PRICE. We will return to the explanations you gave for the 

delay in funding and how this all comes together as we proceed. 

Mr. Rogers, let me turn to you. 

FUNDING AVAILABILITY

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I am absolutely confused. I don’t understand what has been said. I am trying to understand what the 

problem is. 

Mr. Sammon, you say that a great percent of the monies available to these two systems is available now to be spent. Who said 

that? 

Mr. ASHLEY. I did, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. Is that correct? 

Mr. ASHLEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. Repeat that briefly. 

Mr. ASHLEY. The percentage numbers? 

Mr. ROGERS. Yes. 

Mr. ASHLEY. Yes, sir. I can speak to any one of the Tier 1 large 

transit systems. 

Mr. ROGERS. Keep it simple. 

Mr. ASHLEY. If we look at fiscal year 2006 funds for New York, 

96 percent of the funding is available to be drawn down today. 

Mr. ROGERS. Today? 

Well, Mr. Morange, why haven’t you drawn that down? 

Mr. MORANGE. Well, on most of the drawing down of the funding, 

you know, we have to put in vouchers and all. And this has been 

ongoing. A lot of times, we don’t even find out that the grant has 

been awarded to us until almost a year and a half after the clock 

starts running. 

Mr. ROGERS. He says the money is available now. 

Right? 

Mr. ASHLEY. Yes, sir. Of the 2006 dollars—— 

Mr. ROGERS. Now, what does it take for him to get that money? 

Mr. ASHLEY. Submit a reimbursable, you know, that the funds 

have been expended and—— 

Mr. ROGERS. He spends the money and then bills you for what 

has been spent. 

Mr. ASHLEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. What about that, Mr. Morange? 

Mr. MORANGE. I don’t really know, at this point. I will have to 

get back to you, because we have a staff that does that. But I am 

sure that—— 

Mr. ROGERS. Surely you know. Surely you know whether or not 

you can support with paper the expenditures that he says you must 

have. That is not difficult to understand. 

Mr. MORANGE. But I am saying I believe that we have put in for 

all of these expenditures that we have used in 2006. And I believe 

that we have done almost everything in 2006. So I don’t know—— 

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Ashley, he said he has already done what you 

requested. 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
65 

2006 FUNDING DRAWDOWN

Mr. ASHLEY. I don’t have the drawdown figures in front of me on 

how much of the 2006 funding has actually been drawn down. Of 

the 2006 funding, all of it is available to be drawn down. I don’t 

have what has been drawn down in front of me. 

Mr. ROGERS. Does anybody here on your staff know? 

Mr. ASHLEY. Do we have the drawdown figures? 

No, but we can provide that back—by grant program, by project. 

Actually, your staff may have that information. We provide those 

reports to your staff on a, at a minimum, quarterly basis. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, Mr. Morange, have you submitted all of your 

expenditure papers that are required before you can get the drawdown? 

Mr. MORANGE. I believe that we have submitted all of the paperwork on everything we have completed. 

Mr. ROGERS. What about that, Mr. Ashley? 

Mr. ASHLEY. I would have to check, sir. I don’t know what has 

been submitted at this point. 

Mr. ROGERS. Why are we having this hearing? Why are we here? 

If you don’t know how much money has been drawn down or how 

much is due to be drawn down, the taxpayers are getting screwed. 

There is nothing new about that, but, goodness gracious. 

Well, Mr. Sammon, you tell us. You have to approve this stuff, 

too. 

Mr. SAMMON. We do. We approve it. All those projects have been 

approved, as Ross said. The money has been obligated, it has been 

approved. But the drawdown numbers—FEMA has the numbers; 

we don’t have the specific drawdown numbers. But I believe all 

that. 

For instance, when Bill mentioned—earlier, we mentioned the 

drawdown over Thanksgiving for the response to the threat. That 

was 2007 money or whatever else that was drawn, 2008 money 

that was drawn out of the account and paid for that surging activity. So there is current money in the accounts. But I don’t have 

the—— 

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Eckles, what about you? Tell us. I know you are 

perfectly content with all of this. Tell us your story. 

Mr. ECKLES. Well, let me give you an example about 2006, since 

they have figures to tout 2006. We had a project that didn’t get 

2006 approval until July of 2008. And the—— 

Mr. ROGERS. What I want to know is, have you submitted drawdown justifications to them that have not been satisfied? 

Mr. ECKLES. We haven’t got—well, we have gotten all of our 

grant authorization to spend down, as of October of 2008 for 2006 

funds. So, yes, we have done that. 

Mr. ROGERS. You have done what? 

Mr. ECKLES. We have submitted whatever reimbursements are 

required for the projects that finally got started in October of 2008. 

Mr. ROGERS. And have they paid you? 

Mr. ECKLES. Not to date. 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
66 

2006 FUNDING DRAWDOWN CONT’D

Mr. ROGERS. They have not reimbursed you for the papers that 

you sent in that you spent? 

Mr. ECKLES. Right. There is a pretty big lag time to get that 

back. It is, what, about 3 to 6 months? 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, how long ago did you complete sending the 

paper work? 

Mr. ECKLES. We do it incrementally. So—— 

Mr. ROGERS. Help me out. Make it simple, please. Tell me, when 

did you submit the justifications to be reimbursed for? 

Mr. ECKLES. Since they only started in October, we have only 

had one submittal in December, for DART. So December was our 

first submittal of our initial reimbursement request. 

Mr. ROGERS. Have they reimbursed you for the expenditures that 

you have made? 

Mr. ECKLES. Not yet. 

Mr. ROGERS. What is the problem? 

Mr. ASHLEY. I would have to check on the specifics for the—— 

Mr. ROGERS. Oh, for God’s sake. Did you bring anything with 

you? 

Mr. ASHLEY. Not on what we have actually paid out, no, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. Holy cow. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have heard all I want to hear. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Rothman. 

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

And I join Ranking Member Rogers. I am shocked that, for example, FEMA and TSA don’t know how much of the 2006 money has 

gone out. Don’t you need to know whether the people’s money, as 

approved by the Congress, has been spent according to the 

Congress’s will as expressed in legislation that governs your agencies? Don’t you want to know if it is being spent? Because if it is 

not being spent, then you are not fulfilling your obligations to keep 

rails safe in America. Don’t you want to know if it is spent? 

Mr. Ashley. 

Mr. ASHLEY. Yes, sir, we do want to know how it is spent, when 

it is spent and all of that. We do provide—and it is my mistake for 

not having the reports in front of me—but we do provide both to 

your staffs. We also use it internally—exactly how much money is 

drawn down on a regular basis. 

Mr. ROTHMAN. Excuse me, sir, I apologize. I don’t know—could 

you explain your responsibility? How could you know the rail security picture in the United States if you don’t know what has been 

spent from the 2006 budget? How can you be doing your job properly if you don’t know? 

And I am not saying you need to know every dollar, to the penny. 

How about a ballpark figure? I think that is more of a rhetorical 

question. 

But let me just say this. There is also a great disparity, apparently, between what the chairman of the committee knows and 

what you say is the truth. The chairman said that 96 percent of 

the money was unspent nationwide in 2006—excuse me, 93 percent—and 99 percent from 2007 unspent. But you say that they are 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
67 

available for drawdown, but, frankly, you don’t know if they have 

been spent or not. 

APPROVAL OF THE 2006 BUDGET

How about Mr. Eckles, Colonel Eckles, who says that it took him 

until October of 2008 to get approval for the 2006 budget? Mr. Ashley, how do you explain that considerable delay, sir? 

Mr. ASHLEY. For fiscal year 2006, there were considerable problems with the process, as I am aware. I wasn’t here during that 

time frame. There was a lot of back and forth, as I understand it, 

between the grantees and TSA and FEMA at that point. The process was completely different then. I was made aware that there 

were a number of unallowable things applied for, and all of that 

had to be married up. 

Mr. ROTHMAN. Okay, those were bad practices. You weren’t 

there. 

Mr. ASHLEY. Correct. 

PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS

Mr. ROTHMAN. On a scale of one to 10, Mr. Ashley, 10 being all 

the problems that caused this delay for the 2006 funds—10 being 

all those problems have been fixed, what number would you give 

the process now? 

Mr. ASHLEY. Where one would be the best? 

Mr. ROTHMAN. Yes. 

Mr. ASHLEY. I would say we are probably around a four to five. 

We still have a long way to go in the process to improve it, to make 

it streamlined, to make it, as Mr. Eckles said, more transparent. 

We still have a ways to go in that process. 

Mr. ROTHMAN. What is the problem? 

Mr. ASHLEY. I think a couple different things. One is, it is the 

natural maturing of grant programs. If you take the Port Security 

Grant Program to date, which has been around for quite a long 

time, the process is much more of a streamlined process that goes 

forward. We have a different process in place for our Tier 1 transit 

agencies than we do in our Tier 2 transit agencies. 

Mr. ROTHMAN. Okay, but these are the Tier 2 folks, right? 

Mr. ASHLEY. Right. 

JOINT ADMINISTRATION BY FEMA AND TSA

Mr. ROTHMAN. I know my time is limited, but do you gentlemen, 

Mr. Sammon or Mr. Ashley, do you have an opinion on whether the 

grant program that the transit—the security grant program should 

be administered jointly by FEMA and the TSA, or should it be administered by only one of your organizations? 

TIER ONE PROCESS

Mr. SAMMON. I think the joint administration works because TSA 

sets the policy. 

Let me, if I can, just walk through quickly, in terms of the Tier 

1 agencies, how the process works. In 2006, it was a hands-off process that was strictly done all by competitive submissions. When the 

submissions came in, no one could talk to the applicant grantee— 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
68 

we could not have a conversation, you couldn’t pick up the phone 

to talk to the grantee to ask them questions about the grant. 

Mr. ROTHMAN. Was that as a matter of law? 

Mr. SAMMON. That was a matter of the process at that time. So 

we changed—— 

Mr. ROTHMAN. Was that as a law? Okay. That wasn’t law as 

written by the Congress. It was regulations written in the Bush administration? 

Mr. SAMMON. It was probably DHS grant guidance. 

So we looked at that, and that was failed. So we said let’s set 

up a different process; we call it a cooperative agreement. The way 

it works is that TSA and FEMA sit down with the regional working 

group, we discuss any guideline changes, funding priorities, ask 

preliminary questions, and the agencies develop their project concepts. They might say, I want to harden tunnels, I want to hire 

personnel or I want canine teams. The project concepts are preliminarily scored and ranked, because we—— 

Mr. ROTHMAN. Excuse me, Mr. Sammon. I have overdone my 

time. 

Mr. Ashley said 40 percent to go to get this right? Am I right, 

40 percent to go? 

And maybe someone else can ask the two guys on the ground, 

Mr. Morange and Mr. Eckles, if they agree that there is 40 percent 

to go, and this is how many years after Congress first provided 

money. It is unacceptable. I think heads should roll and people 

should be fired. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Kirk. 

CASH FLOW REPORT

Mr. KIRK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just two quick things, and 

then I am going to yield to Mr. Rogers. 

You are an Air Force veteran, a lot of experience in information 

technology. My gentle suggestion to you would be to cancel all 

leave, crash this weekend, and get this committee a cash-flow report by Monday morning. And I would hope that you would be able 

to do that. 

Mr. ASHLEY. Yes, sir. And I think it is my mistake that I don’t 

have one in front of me. I think your staff may even have them behind you, but—— 

Mr. KIRK. Okay. 

METRA REQUEST

Secondly, I deal with Metra, which is the largest transit agency 

in the Chicagoland area. We put in a grant application to link 

closed-circuit televisions to local police departments because, frankly, Metra police is pretty thin and not present. The Department 

turned it down saying, hey, because Metra is not the first responder of record at these train stations, you guys are hosed. And 

I would say that is probably overly restrictive. So if you could take 

a look at that, that would be a good thing. 

And let me yield the rest of my time to the ranking member. 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
69 

TWO AGENCIES IN CHARGE

Mr. ROGERS. I thank the gentleman very kindly for that time. 

I have the drawdown information here. For 2008, we authorized 

$359 million. You have drawn down $5 million. You have $354 million of that left, 98.6 percent still laying around. 2007, in the same 

security grant program we authorized $162 million. You have 

drawn down $3.5 million. You have 97.8 percent of it laying 

around. That is 2007. 2006, you still have 94 percent of it undrawn. 

And 2005, there is almost 14 percent of the 2005 money still laying 

around. 

Somebody mentioned here a while ago, perhaps from the two 

units, that part of the problem is we have two agencies that you 

have to go through. And I have always figured that when you have 

two bosses, nobody is in charge. I would like to have one person 

to chew on, rather than two who bat the ball back between them 

so you can’t know what is going on and who is responsible. 

Do you all agree with that or not? 

Mr. SAMMON. I think we view it is that FEMA has expertise in 

terms of handling grants. They handle about $4 billion worth of 

grants. TSA has the ATSA requirement and its charter to be the 

transportation security agency for all modes of transportation. In 

terms of setting those priorities, TSA works with FEMA to do that 

and then get the money out. 

APPLICATIONS PROCESS

In terms of applications and looking at where that goes, we have 

a project, for instance, right now from 2008 that we are trying to 

get resolution on, for $36 million to harden a tunnel, and the justification is ‘‘construction and materials.’’ We have been working 

with the agency to try to get a detailed justification from them. It 

is $36 million with a one line justification. We have others—$5 million for CCTV, with a one line justification. 

We work with the agencies to try to get detailed information out. 

The process is to work a cooperative agreement, get the concepts, 

rank them, and then get detailed justifications. In 2008, in particular, when the matching fund requirement was removed, a number of the agencies changed the projects around. And we are still 

working through that process. 

But, again, we have things in there that are one-line justifications that we can’t put out the door until we have more detail. 

Mr. ROGERS. Are these two systems involved in any of those? 

Mr. SAMMON. Not for those two examples, no. Those two systems, 

in terms of what they have, I think there is one project from 2008 

that we are working with MTA on that is about $270 million. I forget exactly what it is for, but we are trying to finalize that. And 

there is one or two with L.A. that we are trying to complete. 

FEMA FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY

Mr. ROGERS. Why is FEMA involved in this? 

Mr. SAMMON. FEMA is involved in this because there is a fiduciary responsibility to make sure that, once the money is awarded, 

that—first of all, there is the mechanism to put it out the door, the 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
70 

administrative mechanism, and then also to make sure that the 

money is spent as it was initially proposed. 

Mr. ROGERS. Why can’t you do that, TSA? 

Mr. SAMMON. Well, TSA currently does not have the mechanism 

to do that, the people nor the administration in place. I think the 

Department’s view of it is, we have an agency, TSA, which is good 

at vetting and security and those kinds of things, but it is not an 

administrative agency for grant purposes. FEMA handles 4 billion 

dollars in grants across the way. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, FEMA, God love them, are notorious for being 

slow and bureaucratic, and they tie themselves up in knots over 

the slightest thing. 

Pardon me, Mr. Ashley. I love you, but—— 

Mr. ASHLEY. That is all right, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS [continuing]. I think privately you would probably 

admit that is true. And here we see the biggest example of, I think, 

that. 

But we are frustrated. We don’t know where to turn or what to 

do to make it work. I mean, we pump the money into the coffer, 

and it just lays there, rotting and mildewing. And the people riding 

these subways and mass transit by the millions daily are the people whose fate hangs in the balance. 

So can we find a way to get the grants out there where the Congress intended them to go? 

EXPEDITE GRANT PROCESS

Mr. SAMMON. We will work more closely with FEMA. Also, what 

we will do—we probably, in one respect, have been too nice, in a 

way, in terms of allowing the back-and-forth process to go on. For 

instance, this one-liner from the agency who wants $36 million for 

a particular project, we should probably say, if we don’t hear a response in 2 weeks or whatever else it is, we will move on. 

But, we have been, I think, generous in terms of working with 

the agencies and working with changes, as, for instance, in 2008 

when the Congress said you don’t need to have matching funds 

anymore, a large number of projects were all reprogrammed because they wanted to change priorities. And we were very flexible 

and said we will work with you on that. That is a process that 

slows things down. 

But we will work on a number of things with—— 

REPORT REQUIREMENT

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to request that both 

agencies, TSA and FEMA, give this Subcommittee a report no later 

than 1 month from today about what can be done to expedite these 

grants and what the problem is and a timetable for getting this 

money out there. I would like to see us require them to give us 

something in a month’s time. 

Mr. PRICE. Let’s do just that. 

We will expect in a month’s time a report on the best explanation 

you can give for the problems we have encountered and your plan 

for resolving this and giving us money where it needs to be. That 

is an important priority for the Administration coming in, and we, 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
71 

on this Subcommittee, would like to push that forward. A month 

seems about right. 

Mr. ROGERS. And it better be good. 

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, may I ask you a question with regards to the report that you and the Ranking Member were talking 

about? And maybe this was assumed by you in your request to 

these gentlemen, but that the report also include their timetable 

and pledge for disbursing the money. 

Mr. ROGERS. That was one of the three things. 

Mr. PRICE. Yes, we will flesh this out. But, of course, that is one 

thing we want to know, where we stand now and what the current 

timetable looks like, as far as they can project it. But much more 

than that; obviously, business as usual isn’t what we are looking 

for here. We want to see a plan for getting this done. 

Mr. ROGERS. And I want to know who is responsible. I want to 

know the names and addresses. 

Mr. PRICE. In my period of questioning, I want to return explicitly to that, because I don’t think we have yet sorted out the TSAFEMA roles here. I want to go back to some of Mr. Eckles’s problem and dissect that account and see exactly where the delays we 

are talking about occurred. 

But I first want to turn to my friend, Mr. Serrano. 

IMPORTANCE OF FUNDING

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, I, like all members, had a series of questions. But 

I am not going to ask those questions; I will submit them to the 

record. Because, at the expense of being redundant, I have to join 

the committee in the outrage of what I heard here today. 

You know, with all due respect to you two gentlemen, those two 

guys, New York and L.A., with all due respect to all the rest of the 

Nation, have a pretty tough job on their hands. They have to protect two of the largest targets in this country. There was a reason 

why the terrorists hit New York. It wasn’t because they knew I 

lived there. There was a reason: It was Wall Street, it was the 

stock market, it was our financial center. There was a reason why 

they hit the Pentagon: It was our military strength. There was a 

reason why they intended to hit the legislative building or the 

White House. So all these things made some sense in a horrific 

way. 

As a result, we turned this government upside-down and created 

this Homeland Security Department of which you are part. And in 

turning this country and the government upside-down, we did a lot 

of things that some of us still feel bad about, in terms of people’s 

civil liberties and civil rights and how we deal with implementing 

security. 

But one thing we all did, whether we were happy about it or not 

happy about it, is we voted year after year—and I have been on 

this committee since the beginning—for the funding that goes for 

the whole Department and for your specific agencies. 

And I have to say that, except maybe for the FBI, which was in 

charge of another part of fighting the war on terror, we haven’t 

pulled any strings here when it came to holding back on dollars. 

A lot of money has been spent. 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
72 

So even those of us who still have problems with the way Homeland Security is run and any of your agencies is run still feel that 

the money has to be spent. It makes us look bad if we have to fight 

every year to get more money and then the money is not spent. 

Understand something. Yesterday the President signed a bill 

which was a monster bill. It had nine subcommittees involved in 

that one bill. But one of those bills was not Homeland Security, because that goes out by itself, because every Member of Congress 

knows the importance of what you do, or at least what you are supposed to do. 

And here we hear that there is money ready to be drawn down 

but they can’t draw it down. As far as I am concerned, the money 

was ready to be drawn down the minute the President signed the 

bill. 

I remember working for the New York Board of Education and 

asking the State for money, and they always told me that the 

money was ready to be drawn down, except that 2 years later I still 

hadn’t received the money for the Title 1 programs. And so I know 

what we are talking about here. 

I think you should get at least a sense that this chairman, this 

ranking member, and this Subcommittee are not happy with the 

testimony that came today and that it is totally unacceptable to say 

that you don’t have the numbers. Because, again, we appreciate the 

work you do, we appreciate the work you do, but those two are 

charged directly with the responsibility of taking care of Mrs. Rivera when she enters the subway system or takes the bus somewhere. And I am interested that she gets taken care of, along with 

Miss Smith and Miss Goldblatt and everybody else. 

This is important. And I would hope that you take away from 

here the need to answer the questions and to get on the ball. You 

can’t come back to us again and tell us you haven’t spent money. 

You know, there are areas where we allocate money and hope it 

doesn’t get spent. This is an area where we allocate money and we 

know it has to get spent and we want it to be spent. 

And I will not tolerate this part of the panel telling me that that 

part, which is on the field, dealing with the issues daily, that they 

can’t draw down the money or the support they need. 

So take seriously the chairman’s request and the ranking member’s request for that report, and do something which is strange for 

some of us to do: Don’t think of yourselves as bureaucrats. Think 

of yourselves as a team where those two may be in your position 

next week and you will be running New York and L.A., and then 

you know what they have to go through. 

And so, if I sound one-sided, it is because I live in that city, I 

know that subway, and because in a couple of hours I will be on 

Amtrak back to the city of New York. So I know exactly what I am 

talking about. They need your support, and the answers you gave 

us today are not acceptable. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Serrano. 

Mr. Calvert. 

ADVICE ON STREAMLINING THE PROCESS

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
73 

Before I get to my comments, I want to thank Jack Eckles, who 

is attached to the 358 Civil Affairs Brigade in my district in Riverside, California. Thanks for your service, your service in Iraq. We 

appreciate that. 

And thank all of you for coming. 

I have a list of questions also that I am going to submit to the 

record. I have a couple of comments, sharing my colleague’s perspective on this. 

I think what we need is your advice, Mr. Eckles, and your advice, 

Mr. Morange, on how to move forward. And if you could give us 

some written responses to the committee on your advice on how 

these agencies can better streamline this process, I would rather 

hear it from the folks in the field that we possibly can help that 

process along. 

One of the things I heard was this issue on the historical environmental review. I would suspect that public safety trumps historical environmental review. That is one thing we can do here in 

Congress, is, possibly working with the chairman and the ranking 

member, get an expedited waiver process in those instances. I am 

sure my colleague from New York would agree that, even though 

those areas in New York where you have historical significance, 

there should be an expedited waiver process if public safety is at 

risk. I think the people in New York would go along with that. And 

so I think we could be helpful in that process, in trying to move 

that process along. 

And if we could get, in the field, your advice on how this process 

could move faster, we would be very much interested in hearing 

that. 

And, with that, I am going to submit my questions for the record 

and hope to hear back from you all. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Calvert. 

We have been conferring here, gentlemen, and we think one way 

to bring some focus to this and some resolution to it, hopefully, 

would be to ask the two of you to come back. And although it has 

the effect of shortening the time frame a bit, we have a hearing 

scheduled on March the 31st with TSA. And we, of course, will 

have other business to conduct that day, but we would like to ask 

the two of you to reappear on that day, be available for questions 

and to have this material together by that time. We will very 

quickly get to you our specifications as to what we want that to include. So, if that is agreeable with you, we will count on that. 

Mr. Eckles, I said I wanted to dissect your case a little further. 

And I am not looking so much for more detail as I am a kind of 

accounting of where the problem lay with the things you have already laid out before us. 

When Mr. Rogers was raising the questions about FEMA’s dispatch—or lack of dispatch in actually getting the money out the 

door—we were focusing on the period from the fall of last year 

until the present. 

However, we, of course, also have a time period of 2 years, from 

2006 forward to the fall of last year. And my understanding of most 

of what you told us is that that period was occupied with a constant back-and-forth with TSA, not with FEMA. Many of the comVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:01 Jul 21, 2009 Jkt 050121 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\50121P2.XXX 50121P2

CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
74 

plaints that you have had to do with the shifting criteria, the lack 

of transparency, and the various frustrations which you outlined 

very well. 

So I want to just get you to clarify that a bit. We are dealing 

with two agencies here. Their roles perhaps intersect in problematic ways. But, to the extent most of these decisions lie with TSA, 

I want to make sure we focus on what that problem looks like from 

your point of view, and how the process can be improved. 

And, Mr. Morange, we would welcome your chiming in any time 

you wish. 

Mr. ECKLES. Would it be helpful if I gave you, like, the 2006 

chronology kind of example of how this sequence of difficulties really goes about? 

Mr. PRICE. Yes, very briefly, just to give us a sense of how that 

unfolded. Yes, that is exactly what I am asking for. 

Mr. ECKLES. Grant guidance comes out, we have 45 days to submit investment justification. We submit that investment justification. 60 days, TSA has a requirement to give us an approval or 

nonapproval of our investment justification. That is the first grant 

authorization notice, but it doesn’t authorize you to spend down. 

Then we go through the haggling process of questions like ‘‘what 

is meant by multi-agency,’’ ‘‘could you clarify this,’’ ‘‘you are too detailed here,’’ and it goes back and forth for an interminable amount 

of time until we get that second grant authorization that says, 

‘‘Okay, we are done, you can spend the money now.’’ 

One of our biggest difficulties is the level of detail they want for 

something nobody has committed we are authorized to spend on: 

engineering drawings, specifications, a detailed budget of a project 

we have never done before. And nobody has the time or the energy 

to commit to developing engineering drawings and detailed budgets 

with any amount of certainty, which they keep asking for, when we 

don’t have the money to afford the people to actually do that. We 

have never gone out and specced out this, or we have never gone 

out and drafted that, yet we are expected to have that kind of level 

of detail. 

So this haggling and clarification goes back and forth until they 

finally settle on something that they will give us a spend-down 

grant authorization. 

Mr. PRICE. Well, let me ask, I am sure you would agree that 

there is a certain due diligence which TSA should be exercising. I 

mean, even in urgent, emergency situations, we don’t want to 

spend money recklessly or in ways that will not achieve the desired 

purpose. Yet it also seems very clear that the process you are describing goes way beyond that, in fact, is pretty dysfunctional in 

terms of getting money applied where it needs to be. 

What would your suggestions be as to what an appropriate level 

of scrutiny is and an appropriate time frame? I know that is a very 

general question, but I am asking you to reflect on your experience 

and what, in your view, this process really should have looked like. 

Mr. ECKLES. Well, they don’t have to reinvent the wheel. My 

grants administrator that handles my transit security grants works 

with the Federal Transit Agency’s grant process. And they have a 

Section 5307, which completely streamlines and structures a process where, you know, there is no expectation that you have drawVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:01 Jul 21, 2009 Jkt 050121 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\50121P2.XXX 50121P2

CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
75 

ings on your table and that you are going to know exactly where 

every penny goes. They say, give us the concept, give us the idea, 

and does it fit into the criteria that we are looking for. You either 

have the concept and the project idea or you don’t have it. Or if 

it needs to be adjusted, that shouldn’t take any amount of time at 

all. 

But the level of questioning, the level of detail—and, mind you, 

the level of questioning and detail is done by an analyst who has 

no idea about transit security, has no idea about engineering, but 

yet we have to answer these rather inane questions back and forth 

and change our grant and rewrite it. 

So I would streamline it according to the FTA Section 5307 criteria. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Sammon, do you have any response? 

Mr. SAMMON. Was that 2006, or was that 2009? When were you 

referring to, this process of asking for detailed engineering drawings? 

Mr. ECKLES. I used the 2006 timeline as an example, but we 

have run into that problem in 2007 supplemental and 2008, and we 

are on our fourth review in the 2008 right now. 

Mr. SAMMON. Well, we will look into those details. But the idea 

with the working group is to get the concepts, rank them, score 

them, and say, here are the projects that are going to be approved. 

This is—I was referring to the $35 million project—and then go 

back and get the justification. 

After the project has been approved, it is on the books, ready to 

go. It is going to go through the hopper, but Ross and anybody else, 

any other fiduciary agent, would have to have more than, for instance, the project they refer to a one-line justification for construction costs. 

Mr. ECKLES. Well, we submitted a project that had 54 pages. 

Mr. SAMMON. Well, anyway, I don’t have those. We can look into 

those things and see what they look like. But the process is designed to get that upfront, get the approval. And that is how we 

work with New York. It works very well in New York. It works 

very well in most regions. We will look in more detail at Los Angeles, but New York is the largest, most complicated one. 

Mr. PRICE. Well, I am sure there are differences agency to agency, but you are not suggesting that Los Angeles’s problems are isolated or unique, are you? I mean, we, after all, have been talking 

about aggregate numbers for the most part, right? Aggregate numbers, nationwide numbers—— 

Mr. SAMMON. Yes. 

Mr. PRICE [continuing]. Numbers that you would agree are not 

acceptable for 2006, 2007, 2008 or even 2005. 

Mr. SAMMON. Right. The numbers should be out the door. 

Mr. PRICE. All right. So Mr. Eckles does have some, perhaps, 

unique circumstances. But on the face of it, it would appear that 

these process problems, whatever it is that is creating these interminable delays, are pretty much systemic. 

Mr. SAMMON. But, I think the process has been changed to get 

as much of that on the front end—to agree on the projects and then 

have the justifications come in as the agencies can provide the justifications. So, it is upfront to say, I would like to train 420 people, 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
76 

or I would like to do a camera system in a subway that is going 

to cost $3 million. The regional working group ranks them, tiers 

them, and agrees on them. Then, the next step is the investment 

justifications have to go in. They have to be at a level of detail that 

can pass the test for future audits. 

Mr. ASHLEY. Might I add something real quick, Mr. Chairman? 

Also, we are, to a large degree, dealing with sins of the past, if you 

will, when we talk about the dollars getting out the door. The 2006 

processes, as you have heard from both of these gentlemen, were 

delayed considerably. The 2007 process was delayed considerably. 

What we are seeing now is a bottleneck, if you will, where all of 

those dollars are hitting up against a wall in a process to get them 

out the door rapidly. 

The 2008 process, I would submit, both from FEMA’s efforts and 

TSA’s watching what is going on there, has been much improved. 

That is why I said we are not completely there, but we are getting 

better. 

Also, I just had one quick comment. For the March 31st hearing, 

do you want the report prior to that date? We had two different requirements there. Just seeking a little clarification. 

REPORT CLARIFICATION

Mr. PRICE. I think we would like the report a day or so in advance. We know it is a tight time frame but, we need to deal with 

this. 

Mr. ASHLEY. I agree, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. But, Mr. Chairman, these two gentlemen will be 

here in person to answer any questions we might have on the report? 

Mr. PRICE. Yes. That is the intent. 

I am not going to prolong this back-and-forth at the moment. I 

think we have the picture. We will await your accounting of what 

is going on now. But, above all, we aren’t looking for rationalization; we are looking for a concrete plan for improvement going forward. 

And while we appreciate the chance to look more closely at these 

two systems, it seems quite clear that with these drawdown numbers, we are not just dealing with isolated problems. Each has its 

own peculiarities and particularities, but what we are talking 

about goes way beyond that. 

Let’s see. Mr. Rogers. 

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I don’t think I have anything further. 

I appreciate the four of you testifying, especially the two gentlemen from the systems. 

I was very impressed with Mr. Morange’s concluding remarks, 

where he gives us eight specific recommendations. I like it when 

a witness gives us a cure for a problem. And we have not had the 

agency people respond to his recommendations, but perhaps they 

could do that for the record. 

But we appreciate that, Mr. Morange. It was helpful. 

[The information follows:] 

The eight recommendations from Mr. Morange were outlined in both his written 

and oral testimony and were required by Chairman Price and Ranking Member 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
77 

Rogers to be addressed as part of the FEMA-TSA report just submitted this week 

for the March 31 followup hearing on Rail and Transit Security Grant funding. 

And, Mr. Eckles, I think we share your frustration with the process, and this chairman I think is determined to make things happen. And we expect a clarification and complete solution to this 

problem on March the 31st when these two gentlemen come back 

and give us a report that everything is smoothed out. And if they 

can’t tell us that, we will have some questions for them. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

Mr. Rodriguez. 

9/11 ACT PROVISIONS

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you very much. And I apologize. I had 

another meeting, in fact, across the hall. 

I have a question that was asked of me to ask Mr. Ashley, and 

it is from Congresswoman Lucille Roybal-Allard, who is sick today 

and wasn’t able to be here. And she wanted me to see—and I am 

going to go ahead and read her question. And it is based on, actually, trying to get you to compel FEMA to make grant applicants 

aware of the responsibility to transit workers under the 9/11 Act. 

And the question is that, ‘‘The 9/11 Act included several key provisions to safeguard the interest of transit workers. Specifically, it 

provided that the recipients of the grant funding should pay a prevailing wage and allow workers to bargain collectively. Unfortunately, FEMA neglected to mention these crucial requirements in 

the February 2008 guidance issued to grant applicants. ‘‘Will you 

take’’—you know, according to her—‘‘will you take action to rectify 

the error and ensure that the transit security programs are implemented in the way that Congress intended?’’ 

Mr. ASHLEY. Sir, I can tell you that we actually already have. 

For the fiscal year 2009 guidance that we put out, we did rectify 

that issue. On page 39 of the guidance, we did require that all aspects of Davis-Bacon be adhered to for failing to pay prevailing 

page rates. So we have dealt effectively with that problem, or that 

issue, sir. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Well, thank you for answering Congresswoman 

Roybal-Allard’s question and concerns. I don’t have any questions. 

I apologize for being late. 

AGENCY PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

Mr. PRICE. That is all right. We have lots of activity here, and 

we appreciate your coming in. 

Well, I am going to draw this to a close. We will want to formalize the request Mr. Rogers articulated, about explicit responses 

for the record to the recommendations actually that both gentlemen 

made regarding future improvements. 

I want to bring up only one further matter, and it will just take 

a minute. It mainly involves a response for the record. But since 

I did cite in my statement a figure based on this, I want to circle 

back around just for a moment and ask about the evaluation process, Mr. Sammon, that TSA undertakes with respect to agency performance. 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
78 

For the first time since TSA was formed in 2002 and as part of 

the DHS fiscal 2008–2010 performance report, TSA evaluated the 

percent of mass transit and passenger rail agencies that were in 

full compliance with the industry-accepted Security and Emergency 

Management Action Items to improve security. 

In total, there were 17 action items, and TSA hoped that 50 percent of these entities would be in compliance. For this evaluation, 

you conducted 88 baseline security assessments, covering 48 of the 

50 largest mass transit and passenger rail agencies. And on that 

basis, you concluded that only 23 percent of the 48 agencies met 

the target. 

Now, according to TSA, the shortfall reflects thoroughness of assessments which far exceed prior security inspections. In 2009, you 

are going to undertake a second assessment and of course, you are 

hoping to improve on that performance. 

I just want to ask you—and maybe you can respond briefly orally, but also for the record—I have before me these guidelines, 10 

pages of quite straightforward action items, areas that would enable one, if you could assess them thoroughly, to come up with 

some measure of performance. 

[The information follows:] 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
79 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 123 here 50121A.042
80 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 124 here 50121A.043
81 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 125 here 50121A.044
82 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 126 here 50121A.045
83 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 127 here 50121A.046
84 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 128 here 50121A.047
85 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 129 here 50121A.048
86 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 130 here 50121A.049
87 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 131 here 50121A.050
88 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 132 here 50121A.051
89 

It is not clear to me, and I wonder if it is clear to the agencies, 

how this assessment process works, what kind of weights are assigned to each of these items, how they relate to each other. It reminds me of some of the documents we have seen on risk assessment, where they are so complicated and so multifaceted that one 

wonders about their usefulness as very precise measurement tools. 

So I cited and I am alarmed about the 23 percent figure. But the 

reason I wanted to bring it up again was that I am not terribly confident as to what that 23 percent figure really means. 

Was it clear, do you think, to the transit and rail entities of what 

requirements they were being assessed on and what constituted a 

passing grade? Was it clear how all this was being calculated? 

I would be interested in your oral response, but, more than that, 

I would be interested in a more detailed response for the record as 

to the way this is scored, the way this actually works, and maybe 

further refinements that you are considering to make this a more 

precise measurement tool. 

Mr. SAMMON. Thank you. I am glad you asked that question. 

The assessments are done by TSA transportation security inspectors voluntarily with the agencies. The 20 percent is actually—if 

you look at these—and I think the confusion here is looking at 

these as compliance standards versus excellence standards. The 

only way you were in that category, as terms of 23 percent, was 

if you had a greater than 90 percent score over all 17 measures. 

If any one of the 17 measures, any one, was below 70 percent, you 

didn’t get credit in the category. 

So, this is really the top of the top. It is kind of like looking at 

grading in school—that these are all ‘‘A’’s. There is an elite group 

that are in that top category. 

AGENCY PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT CONT’D

And also what we do with our security inspectors and our sharing best practices among the agencies, our idea is: ‘‘Here is the top 

group. How do we get the others migrated to that level?’’ They are 

people—again, as you said, 23 percent in the top group—in the 

transit area, to work with the transit agencies on a voluntary basis 

to get them to improve. Maybe someone needs more people trained, 

maybe they need a better security plan, whatever. But it is an 

interaction, a constant interaction, with the agency to improve 

their overall level of security, to improve the scoring. And, as we 

have seen and the OIG report has addressed, where we have gone 

back to rescore, we have seen improvements with the agency. 

So, it is not like you know, the airline compliance, where compliance is passing grade. This is an excellence grade. Our idea is to 

continue to work with the agencies and migrate them to excellence 

as opposed to passing and, frankly, if we had scored people in this 

thing and they had all passed, I would worry about the standards. 

So these are very high standards. 

There are agencies who make the standards and achieve it, 

which are very good agencies; others which are close. But, if you 

have one miss on any of the 17, you don’t get in the club. 

Mr. PRICE. That is helpful. If you could detail a more elaborate 

account of how this works and how you plan to utilize it, going forVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:01 Jul 21, 2009 Jkt 050121 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\50121P2.XXX 50121P2

CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
90 

ward. That is helpful, though, to understand the kind of tool this 

is. 

[The information follows:] 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
91 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 137 here 50121A.052
92 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 138 here 50121A.053
93 

With that, I am going to adjourn the hearing, with thanks to all 

of you. We clearly have a lot to work on. We will look forward to 

working together and seeing our witnesses here on the 31st. 

And we wish our transit directors the best. We thank you for 

your contribution here today. 

The Subcommittee is adjourned. 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING

CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
(95) 

TUESDAY, MARCH 31, 2009. 

SECURING THE NATION’S RAIL AND TRANSIT SYSTEMS, 

PART 2 

WITNESSES 

JOHN SAMMON, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR OF TRANSPORTATION 

SECTOR NETWORK MANAGEMENT, TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

W. ROSS ASHLEY, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR OF GRANTS PROGRAMS, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN PRICE

Mr. PRICE. The Subcommittee will come to order. Good morning. 

Today we are reconvening our hearing on securing our nation’s rail 

and transit systems. 

On March 12, we heard from the Los Angeles Metropolitan 

Transportation Authority and the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority on the difficulties they have had in getting 

DHS approval to spend their federal grant dollars in a timely fashion. At that time approximately 90 percent of the 2006 rail and 

transit security grant funds remained unspent because DHS and 

the transit agencies were still negotiating what would be eligible 

projects. Meanwhile, our rail and transit security vulnerabilities go 

unaddressed. That is not something that this subcommittee can accept. 

I want to be clear. This is not just a New York and Los Angeles 

problem, although those were the systems we heard from directly 

in this forum. Other Tier 1 transit entities, those systems with the 

most riders and high security risks have also experienced problems 

with spending their grant awards. 

Since the hearing, we have heard from other entities about their 

similar difficulties with DHS, and I will just cite a very few examples in their own words. 

The Philadelphia Transit Authority has been promised resolution 

on how their 2006 transit security grant can be spent for the past 

six months, but because of confusion with the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Association, and FEMA, this process has moved 

‘‘nowhere in months.’’ This money funds projects in Philadelphia 

and in conjunction with New Jersey Transit. In the case of Philadelphia, if they do not receive the grant dollars their project will 

be incomplete. In the case of New Jersey, they are still waiting on 

approval to purchase 35 mobile trace units, with 10 of those units 

to be deployed to the Philadelphia Transit Authority. 

The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority has informed the Subcommittee that while they have had problems with 

the slowness of 2006 grant awards, it was largely because of the 

states—Virginia and Maryland—adding a layer of complexity that 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
96 

delayed application approvals and alterations to their plans. This 

entity also expressed concern about the timeliness of the 2007 

grants. At this time TSA has not yet completed its reviews. 

Atlanta requested and received an extension to spend the remaining 37 percent of its fiscal year 2006 grants. According to that 

transit authority, there were delays in receiving the authorization 

to expend funds primarily because of the environmental process 

and requests for more information from DHS after the submittal of 

initial concepts. 

Because of the extreme frustration expressed by Subcommittee 

members earlier this month about the slowness of actually spending grant dollars appropriated two or three years ago, Ranking 

Member Rogers and I asked TSA and FEMA to come back with 

some solutions to this problem. We believe this process needs to be 

streamlined. 

So Mr. Ashley and Mr. Sammon, we welcome both of you back. 

We have your report in front of us, although I hate to say it was 

submitted only late yesterday afternoon. We do have the report, 

and we will spend time this morning discussing how DHS plans to 

remedy the slow spending of rail and transit security grants from 

2006, 2007 and 2008, as well as how your agencies will reach 100 

percent draw-down. 

I am pleased to note that in 2009, when DHS announces the 

awards for Tier 1 rail and transit entities, there no longer will be 

any additional approval process required by TSA. In comparison, 

this TSA approval phase took 285 days after the 2006 announcement. This change alone would be a vast improvement because rail 

and transit entities could begin spending money on these critical 

projects much faster. We do want to know more about how this 

rather striking change is going to work. 

And there is an additional problem. This report does not provide 

the requested timeline of how previously awarded funds will be 100 

percent drawn down. So one might conclude that you are fixing the 

problem for 2009 while letting previous awards wither on the vine. 

We hope that is not true, but from reading the report, one would 

not know any different. So we get into this discussion right away. 

Let me first recognize Ranking Member Hal Rogers for any statement he wants to make. 

[The information follows:] 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
97 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 145 here 50121A.054
98 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 146 here 50121A.055
99 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 147 here 50121A.056
100 

OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Gentlemen, it is not often that we have to go back 

a second time. You do not have the time, we do not have the time. 

So this ought to be good. It better be really good because we do not 

want to do it a third time. 

In many ways TSA is the public face of Homeland Security. It 

is not only the agency millions of people interact with daily at the 

airports, but it is also what many of us think about when discussing our response to the attacks of 9/11, and since its creation 

shortly after those tragic and unforgettable events, TSA has made 

tremendous progress. 

Screening and credentialing programs such as TWIC and Secure 

Flight, once symbols of ineffectiveness and disfunction, are now 

viable programs, properly identifying travelers and transportation 

workers. Just this past week, TSA issued its one millionth TWIC 

card, and since January, Secure Flight has begun screening operations. 

But in spite of this laudable progress, many challenges certainly 

remain, and securing the surface transportation sector is one of 

those big challenges. 

We can only do so much to secure these open systems and the 

federal government plays a limited role in what is primarily a state 

and local operating environment. Rail and transit grants jointly administered by FEMA and TSA represent what is perhaps the signature contribution of the federal government in this arena. But despite visible threats to transit systems around the world, and more 

than $1.5 billion in appropriations over the last few years, we appear to be falling down on that front. So I look forward to hearing 

how we are going to get these grants back on track and get real 

security solutions in place. 

And so Mr. Ashley, Mr. Sammon, we meet again. I enjoy being 

with you, but I hope this is the last time we are blessed with it 

this year, and I trust you both have come prepared so we can get 

to the bottom of why so little of the grant funding has moved out 

the door. 

[The information follows:] 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
101 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 150 here 50121A.057
102 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 151 here 50121A.058
103 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. We have your joint statement which will 

be entered fully in the record, but we would like to have your fiveminute summaries, and we will start with Mr. Sammon. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF MR. SAMMON

Mr. SAMMON. Good morning, Chairman Price, Ranking Member 

Rogers, Distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, and my colleague, Mr. Ashley, from FEMA. 

As the federal agency responsible for transit security, TSA shares 

the Subcommittee’s concerns about draw down and expenditure 

rates. We want to thank you for providing us the opportunity to 

discuss what TSA has done to improve its portion of the transit 

grant process and what we expect to do to improve the flow of state 

and local grant expenditures. 

TSA owns the front end of the process. We are responsible for 

identifying security priorities and assigning projects to achieve the 

highest risk reduction. We recognize the timeline involved in this, 

and we have taken steps to reduce that process down from 345 

days in fiscal year 2006 to 60 days in 2009, and 60 days means all 

the grants as of Friday are out and over to FEMA. So the process 

chart that we passed out to this Subcommittee and have shown everyone is not an expectation or a plan or whatever else, it actually 

happened. 

We have done that largely by taking the Investment Justification 

process and putting that up front rather than negotiating over a 

period of months. 

So, TSA has fixed the front end. We have taken it down to 60 

days, and we think that is a reasonable period of time to review 

grant applications, sort them, put them in proper order, make priorities, and determine awards. 

Secondly, TSA is also committed to fixing the back end of the 

process. I know that transit agencies are conducting grant-related 

security activities, so I want to know why the draw-down rates are 

so low. This Thursday, I am beginning a series of meetings around 

the country to determine why the draw-down rates are so low and 

what can be done to expedite them. I am going to start with the 

largest agencies, the MTA in New York on Thursday; sit down with 

their folks, and map out the process in terms of determining where 

security projects are in the planning and execution process. We intend to map each state, local and federal process to identify the 

root causes of expenditure delay versus planned. 

Finally, we have addressed the recommendations of Mr. Morange 

and Mr. Eckles and we agree with approximately 17 different recommendations. We agree with six; recommendation nine we agree 

with in principle, additional work has to be done; and we disagree 

with two recommendations, one being that we should contact only 

the transit grant agency and not the primary security provider, and 

the other involving of issuing guidance before the appropriation is 

enacted. 

So, finally, I would like to leave this Subcommittee that TSA has 

reduced the front end of the process, the part that TSA is responsible for, and we are determined to find out where the money is 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
104 

sitting in terms of the approximately three-quarters of a billion dollars between 2006 through 2008. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Ashley. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF W. ROSS ASHLEY

Mr. ASHLEY. Good morning, Chairman Price, Ranking Member 

Rogers, Members of the Committee. Thank you for having us back 

here for round two. 

Earlier this month I appeared at this Subcommittee with Mr. 

Sammon as well as representatives from New York and Los Angeles. During that hearing, Mr. Chairman, you and Congressman 

Rogers as well as other members of the Subcommittee, expressed 

concern over several issues. Among those—— 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Ashley, make sure your microphone is on or you 

are speaking into it. 

Mr. ASHLEY. How is that? Is that better? 

Mr. PRICE. Good. 

Mr. ASHLEY. Among these concerns were the following: the 

amount of time that is required to obligate and draw down critical 

transit security grant funds; the roles and responsibilities of TSA 

and FEMA; as Mr. Sammon mentioned, the specific responses to 

recommendations made both by L.A. and New York transit agencies; and solutions to facilitate rapid draw down on transit security 

grant funds. 

At the Committee’s direction, FEMA and TSA constructed and 

submitted our joint report on these concerns, and we are pleased 

to be here today to discuss the report. The report highlights areas 

of improved results as well as identified specific actions to be taken 

in order to continue to enhance programmatic results. 

To illustrate this point, it has been said twice now, the report 

submitted includes a chart entitled ‘‘Processing Time for TSA 

Grants,’’ clearly illustrating the substantial progress made in the 

time between application submission and when funds are available 

to draw down. 

The report also identifies specific actions to be taken in order to 

continue to make funds available faster, measure results, increase 

capability, and finally, to facilitate increased draw down rates. 

There is one final point I believe requires mention and I believe 

we talked about it briefly in our interoperable communications 

hearing we had as well. From discussions I have had with New 

York and Los Angeles these past weeks, it is not necesarily accurate to equate the rate of drawdown of rail and transit funds with 

the lack of activity by the recipient agencies to increase security 

and safety of their systems. 

It is true that grant funds may have become available for use not 

as quickly as all of us would have liked, but that does not mean 

money is not being used. Critical grant-funded projects are underway in every state, and they are being executed today. 

Again, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to appear 

before you to discuss these matters, and I am happy to take questions. 

[The information follows:] 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
105 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 158 here 50121A.059
106 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 159 here 50121A.060
107 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 160 here 50121A.061
108 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 161 here 50121A.062
109 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 162 here 50121A.063
110 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 163 here 50121A.064
111 

APPROVAL OF PROJECTS BEFORE AWARD AND BACKLOG

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. We will turn directly to questions, and I 

will start with a couple of questions that I pretty well telegraphed 

in my opening statement because I think they are very obvious 

questions from the report you have submitted. 

Your testimony in particularly, Mr. Sammon, restated that you 

intend to move the approval process to zero days after DHS announces how much each transit entity is awarded in fiscal 2009. 

Now, that would mean going from 285 days for the distinctive TSA 

part of this process, to zero days in 2009. 

Now, we know, of course, that TSA and FEMA have been part 

of this statutorily-required 60-day process that precedes the 285 

days you are talking about, and then the TSA process kicked in. 

So presumably in going from 285 days to zero you plan to move the 

work and the review that you do into that initial 60 days, assuming 

you are still going to review and approve all the projects before 

award. I think we need some clarification of that. How exactly is 

it going to work. 

Now, if you are truly able to review and approve projects prior 

to award, then this is obviously a step in the right direction to 

avoid the lengthy delays between your award time and when you 

actually allow transit agencies to spend the funding. Nonetheless 

it is a major change. 

And my second point is that it leaves largely unaddressed the 

process that remains from the previous years of funding. So the 

second question is what are you doing to clear the backlog? Has 

TSA approved all projects for 2006, 2007, 2008? I suspect the answer to that is no. If not, what is the sense in releasing current 

year funds without dealing with the older projects? Unless I missed 

it, the report does not deal with that. 

So two questions: How are you going to make this rather extraordinary turnaround? What does it imply in terms of the sequencing 

and the content of the review process? And then secondly, what 

about the pre-2009 years? 

Mr. SAMMON. Those are two very good questions. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

First of all, in terms of what we have done the chart is showing 

what we have actually done for the 2009 process, and we have 

turned over all during that 60-day period. We have gone through 

the review of the projects down through the ranking of the projects. 

But, the one big change that has happened is the projects are going 

directly to the agency, we do not have the state involvement in it. 

We have been able to move the investment Justifications up into 

that 60 day period and by doing that, we have basically cut the 

cord, award and rank the projects, and send them to FEMA. 

In the past, after the initial period, the states were awarded 

funds and the Investment Justification process went back and forth 

between TSA and the agency for months. We have completed the 

review in 2009—this is done. This is not a plan that we intend to 

do for all the 60-day projects, we have met and sent over to, the 

award, the grant award we sent to FEMA on Friday afternoon. So, 

TSA is done with our portion of the process, and we were able to 

do that by moving the Investment Justification process the anaVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:01 Jul 21, 2009 Jkt 050121 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\50121P2.XXX 50121P2

CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
112 

lysts who put the project priority on a ranking system, a numerical 

ranking system, which makes it very easy to rank and order these 

projects. We do not have to go through a complex period of paneling and so on and so forth by working with the agencies throughout the year to get their project priorities in line. So for the front 

end of the process, we have taken down the time significantly. 

The interim years, starting with fiscal year 2006, was a mess. It 

was a hands-off process, and there was no communication allowed 

back and forth between the agencies, and that was a messy, messy 

process. Fiscal year 2006 would have been lower—TSA is composed 

of the blue and red bars in this chart. I believe that 2007 would 

have been lower. A supplemental appropriation was enacted and in 

the supplemental, TSA pushed for increased use of operational 

funds. The capital grant programs and projects take the most time 

because there is engineering involved and bidding and outsourcing. 

We have pushed to include things like the canine teams, paying for 

canine, paying for mobil screening teams, paying for train surges, 

bus surges and so on, which agencies do not have to outsource or 

bid; they simply do it with their own people, and we have pushed 

for that recommendation. But that change that slowed the process 

down in 2007. I think 2007 would have been better. 

And, in 2008, because Congress—I think it was a good thing to 

do, that Congress did in terms of eliminating the match, the people 

for a number of the previously applied projects went back and said, 

well, gosh, if I do not have a match requirement let me resubmit 

my projects and we worked with them to do that. 

So, in 2009, with a clean process, everyone knew the rules upfront and, we were able to take it down to 60 days. 

Now, as you said, that still does not address the approximately 

three-quarters of a billion dollars sitting out there, and that is why 

I am personally going to go, starting in New York, to identify 

where the money is sitting in terms of between the local planning, 

the local procurement process, then the state and the state processes—the previous money from 2008, back to 2006—because it all 

went through the state, the state process and the federal process, 

we will determine the root cause of where the money sits versus 

plan, and identify those delays because that is the issue—what is 

the cause of the delay. In two weeks we simply did not have 

enough time to go around the country and do this. 

The good thing about this process, getting it down, getting back 

to you and reporting back to you where this is, there are only approximately seven states and approximately 15 or 16 agencies that 

represent the vast majority of this money. So, we should be able 

to get back to you and tell you where this is, where it is sitting 

according to their plan, what we think the delays are, and what we 

think we ought to do to speed up this backlog of money. If we hit 

the front end process, the new process is improved, what do we do 

with the old process, and we are going to have to tell you that, and 

today we did not have enough time in two weeks to be able to tell 

you that. 

TSA APPROVAL OF BACKLOG PROJECTS

Mr. PRICE. So TSA has not approved all the projects for these 

previous years—2006, 2007, 2008? What you are telling me, as I 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
113 

understand it, is that this approval is still tied up in these consultations with the major states involved? 

Mr. SAMMON. All of the 2008s are approved. All of the 2007s are 

redos. What we want to do is go through a detailed examination. 

For instance, I am going to meet with Rob Marciano and Mr. 

Morange on Thursday; sit down and take their projects and outline 

where they are, what is their expenditure plan, where is the money 

versus their expenditure plan, so we can map out and get back to 

you and say, here is the stuff that they plan to spend, here is 

where they are in actual spending, and if there is a federal delay, 

a state delay or a local procurement delay, or whatever else, we 

will be able to outline that to you. 

The issue they have explained to us, the capital projects they 

have to do, they have to do design work. Once the grant order is 

made, then they start the design process, the procurement process, 

the actual construction process, so those things do take time, and 

they do have a plan for how they expect to spend it. But, what we 

want to know is versus that plan what are the inherent—what are 

the inherent delays. What kind of delays are being imposed on 

them from being unable to spend the money before they plan to 

spend it? We want to do that. 

Mr. PRICE. All right. I think case by case one can understand 

what these discussions are about, but I am still having trouble 

with this transition that you are proposing, to basically go to zero 

days of this kind of TSA review you are talking about beyond that 

initial 60 days. Are we to assume that these kinds of protracted 

discussions that you are involved in with regard to these monies 

from 2006, 2007 and 2008 will no longer be necessary or somehow 

they will be telescoped into that first 60 days? 

I do not understand why the process you are proposing for 2009 

has so little relevance apparently to clearing up this backlog. 

Mr. SAMMON. The previous money that is hanging out there, and 

the numbers are from the GAO in terms of what is approved, and 

what the bars represent is the close of the application period. So 

when the application closes, everybody has to have their application closed by the time that money is available for the agency to 

spend. 

But, we have taken the closed, the TSA portion, from the close 

of the applications to the time we approve the applications and 

move them to FEMA, the 60 days. The TSA portion takes 60 days. 

We think that is a reasonable period of time going forward. 

The previous years’ money, most of those awards have been 

made except there are, again in 2008 a number of people when 

they saw that they did not need a match anymore due to the appropriation act, have been going through a process of trying to re-negotiate projects and move money around from one project to another. We expect to have that cleaned up pretty shortly. 

Mr. PRICE. Well, we will want to figure out with you what is a 

reasonable timeframe for getting your full accounting of this. 

Mr. SAMMON. We expect to do this as quickly as possible. I am 

personally going to New York, and going to California next week. 

Mr. PRICE. What is a reasonable timeframe? Thirty days? 

Mr. SAMMON. I think it will take more than 30 days. What I 

would like to do is report back to the Committee staff in 30 days 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
114 

to tell you where we are. We may, with hitting four or five agencies, account for 50 percent of the money, for instance, and I think 

we should report to you under those intervals and get back to it, 

commit to it. All 44—44 agencies account for 92 percent of the 

money, but as I said, 50 agencies account for the vast majority of 

the money, and we will see the process breakdown or delays, I 

think, pretty quickly. 

Mr. PRICE. Well, we will return to this. 

Mr. Rogers, your questions? 

INTERIM REPORT AND FINAL REPORT

Mr. ROGERS. I want to follow up on that. We need a timeline 

here. You are going to report interimly in 30 days, right? 

Mr. SAMMON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. And when can we expect a final report? 

Mr. SAMMON. I think we should be able to get the vast majority 

of this accounted for and have a report cleared out through the 

Federal Government in perhaps about 120 days. 

Mr. ROGERS. I am sorry? 

Mr. SAMMON. About 120 days, have it cleared through DHS so 

on and so forth. The clearance process is also a significant portion 

of getting the report to you. 

Mr. ROGERS. So four months from today. 

Mr. SAMMON. Yes. 

Mr. ROGERS. We should have this all clear? 

Mr. SAMMON. You should know where the money is and what we 

think can be done to get it out faster, yes. 

Mr. PRICE. If that is agreeable, that will be our expectation. 

Mr. SAMMON. One correction. What I would like to do is get the 

vast majority of the money—again those 15 or 16 agencies in seven 

states—as opposed to every last penny of it, but that will tell you 

where the problems are and where most of the problem is. 

Mr. ROGERS. All right, 120 days? 

Mr. SAMMON. Yes. 

Mr. ROGERS. Deal. 

Mr. SAMMON. Good. Thank you. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, now the last time we were here you said you 

would have a report to us by Friday, March 27, and we did not get 

it until 4:45 yesterday afternoon. You will be more prompt next 

time on the 120 days. 

Mr. SAMMON. We will get it to you in 120 days, yes. 

Mr. ROGERS. Because we have not had time to digest this report—— 

Mr. SAMMON. Yes. 

Mr. ROGERS [continuing]. And we do not want to do business that 

way. 

[The information follows:] 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
115 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 174 here 50121A.065
116 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 175 here 50121A.066
117 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 176 here 50121A.067
118 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 177 here 50121A.068
119 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 02 here 50121A.069
120 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 179 here 50121A.070
121 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 180 here 50121A.071
122 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 181 here 50121A.072
123 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 182 here 50121A.073
124 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 183 here 50121A.074
125 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 184 here 50121A.075
126 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 185 here 50121A.076
127 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 186 here 50121A.077
128 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 187 here 50121A.078
129 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 188 here 50121A.079
130 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 189 here 50121A.080
131 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 190 here 50121A.081
132 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 191 here 50121A.082
133 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 192 here 50121A.083
134 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 193 here 50121A.084
135 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 194 here 50121A.085
136 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 195 here 50121A.086
137 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 196 here 50121A.087
138 

Mr. PRICE. Yes. 

FUNDS FOR FY 2010

Mr. ROGERS. Now, the $1.5 billion that has been appropriated for 

rail transit and intercity bus grants, only $192.4 million, about 

$12.5 percent has been spent, leaving more than $1.3 billion, 87 

percent unspent. That means we do not have to provide any funds 

for 2010 then, right? 

Mr. SAMMON. Well, looking at the timeframe, I think one of the 

recommendations we would like to make back to the subcommittee 

in terms of there are activities taking place. I know, for instance, 

there are lots of security-related activities taking place. The MTA, 

for instance, is conducting security searches five days a week in six 

locations with our grant money. They have trained their front-line 

police force and a number of other people in terms of security 

awareness training. 

In Los Angeles, the Sheriff’s Department conducts mobile search 

and screening operations three times a day as a result of this grant 

money. They also do bag checks and sweeps on Metrolink, which 

is a commuter agency. Washington, D.C. has provided their bus operators with security. 

So, there is activity taking place, and the question may be when 

you look at the operational funds, what we want to know is how 

quickly the operational funds are being drawn down versus the 

capital funds because it is a very different issue and I think we 

ought to get insight on that here pretty quickly to get—— 

Mr. ROGERS. I mean for grant monies. 

Mr. SAMMON. Yes. 

Mr. ROGERS. For making grants. 

Mr. SAMMON. Yes. 

Mr. ROGERS. You have got the $1.3 billion laying around. You do 

not need any extra money piled in that hopper for 2010, do you? 

Mr. SAMMON. I think that is one of the recommendations we will 

make back to you. 

Mr. ROGERS. What recommendation? 

Mr. SAMMON. In terms of the question you have asked me in 

terms of—— 

Mr. ROGERS. Whether or not you will need more money? 

Mr. SAMMON. Yes. 

Mr. ROGERS. There is no way you can spend the $1.5 billion in 

2010, is there? 

Mr. SAMMON. The $1.5 billion will not be spent, I doubt it, in 

2010 because they are multi-year capital projects. 

Mr. ROGERS. So if we need money elsewhere in this bill—— 

Mr. SAMMON. Yes. 

Mr. ROGERS [continuing]. Why put more money in a hopper that 

is not operating? 

Mr. SAMMON. I think that is what we have to be able to tell you 

is how quickly it can be operated, sir. 

UNSPENT FUNDS

Mr. ROGERS. Well, now, what you have recommended to us are 

fairly obvious recommendations. I mean, there is nothing rocket 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
139 

science about what you are proposing. Why have we not done this 

before? 

Mr. SAMMON. In terms of going through the grant analysis? 

Mr. ROGERS. Yes. 

Mr. SAMMON. That is a very good question. We have been— 

again, TSA in terms of our role, in terms of talking to the agencies 

and security providers, we see activity happening. We know that 

the capital projects take longer. We have been pushing since the 

supplemental appropriation in 2007 to get more money for operational funds, which we know can be on the street quickly. One of 

the things we have been doing, recognizing that, one of the reasons 

we changed the grant guidance significantly in 2007, to provide for 

operational funds and also to make sure that the operational funds 

provide the highest priority, meaning those projects are going to be 

put to the top because we know that it takes a long time to get 

capital projects funded. 

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Ashley, what do you think? 

Mr. ASHLEY. A couple of things. One, I would like to comment 

on the part about the money that is sitting around in the budget 

that is unspent. From talking with these transit agencies, and I am 

sure if you talked to the transit agencies that have been speaking 

with the notion that the money is not spent or drawn down does 

not mean that the funding is not obligated to valid security projects 

that are ongoing. 

Now, one could make the argument on how big the funnel ought 

to be going in, but every dollar that has been appropriated is going 

towards valid security projects that are obligated to them. 

The second part about this, as mentioned by Mr. Sammon, vast 

improvements have been made on the front end of this process. The 

part about doing the investment justification at the very beginning 

of the process (during the application process) is consistent to the 

way that we do the Homeland Security Grant Program. It allows 

for those funds to become available for draw down faster. 

Having talked to the transit agencies now over the last couple of 

weeks on this issue, the issue is not on the back end of the process 

of how long it takes from a cash management standpoint; it is on 

the front end of the process, on how long it has taken to make 

these funds available, and we have made marked improvement in 

that area. 

What we deem to do now, as Mr. Sammon mentioned, is a couple 

of different things. One is to reach out to the transit agencies and 

determine what is specific to the individual agency or state. One 

size does not fit all. There is not one plan that fits for New York, 

that fits for Los Angeles, that fits for Philadelphia. They each have 

different procurement systems. They have different state laws. 

They each have different abilities to take advantage of our cash 

management exemption from the Cash Management Act. So we are 

going to reach out to each one of them and identify these points 

to help them develop plans to draw down the funds faster. 

In our monitoring plans on the back end, we plan to include an 

explanation of the use of our cash management exemption to allow 

folks to get the funds out of the Federal Treasury and into the 

states and transit coffers much more rapidly. But again, this will 

be a state by state, transit agency by transit agency-specific issue. 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
140 

CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTION TO ACCELERATE EFFORTS

Mr. ROGERS. With all of these monies not spent, and realizing 

that these grants are supposed to be purchasing greater security, 

we put in the 2009 bill a direction that FEMA accelerate efforts to 

develop tools for measuring the achievement and effectiveness of 

its grant programs to give us some yardstick to measure whether 

or not the money being spent is doing what it is supposed to, a cost 

to capability is what you now call it, and we put money in there. 

Where are we on that? 

Mr. ASHLEY. Yes, sir. You all were good enough to put $5 million 

in for the first time to measure the effectiveness of grant programs, 

not just in transit, but across the $27 billion or so at this point that 

has been appropriated to date. The project has two different components to it. One was a look back over the last five years at the accomplishments that have been made from the data that we have 

available, whether from TSA partners and FEMA, or whether from 

Coast Guard and the Port Security Grants, what has been accomplished over the last five years with the existing data. From that, 

we learn what kind of questions are we asking; are we asking the 

right questions of our state and local partners to find out how we 

could better measure that capability going forward on a year-overyear basis so that we can begin to allocate grants not just upon the 

risk but the ability to determine the return on investment of addressing that risk? 

We are in the final process of clearing the Grant Accomplishments Report, which is the first phase of that project. It has been 

cleared out of FEMA and is at DHS now—to look at that five-year 

look back. 

More importantly, we are kicking off in the next three weeks a 

pilot with 20 UASI and state jurisdictions, 18 to 20, that will be 

specifically looking at the year-over-year return on investments all 

across grant programs for those individual jurisdictions on an automated basis, and we have been working with your staff on that. 

Mr. ROGERS. When will we hear something? 

Mr. ASHLEY. With the new team in place, it has taken a little 

bit longer to coordinate reports out. I would anticipate within the 

next two to four weeks we will have the first phase report out of 

final clearance. Then we will report to your staff who will be the 

pilot participants moving forward on the—for the 2010 process. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Rothman. 

OBLIGATION OF FUNDS

Mr. ROTHMAN. Thank you. Mr. Ashley, can you tell me if, if I 

heard you correctly, every dollar appropriated has been obligated. 

Did I understand that correctly? 

Mr. ASHLEY. That is correct. 

Mr. ROTHMAN. For 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009? 

Mr. ASHLEY. 2009, not yet. We will announce the FY09 grants on 

April 8. The Secretary will be announcing them. 

Mr. ROTHMAN. So as of April 8th it will be 100 percent from 2006 

to 2009? 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
141 

Mr. ASHLEY. For 2009, it will take approximately 60 to 90 days 

after the award is made to do the fiduciary programmatic work, 

after which they will be obligated. 

Mr. ROTHMAN. I will tell you there might have been a lot less 

heat last time if we had heard that sentence. 

Mr. ASHLEY. Right. 

ACCELERATION OF PROJECT APPROVAL

Mr. ROTHMAN. But I want to first thank the Chairman and the 

Ranking Member for calling the first hearing on this subject, and 

I would like to thank you gentlemen for calling the second hearing. 

I believe it did get everyone’s attention and refocused on this. 

There has been a lot of work done by the TSA and FEMA, obviously, in a whole host of areas very important to our national security, but on the rail security we have a ways to go. 

I am grateful, I think I am grateful that this middle part, this 

project approval phase of TSA has been eliminated. I say I think 

I am grateful because I am not sure what is lost by going from 285 

days worth of work, evaluation and thought to zero, or have that 

work combined with work that was already being undertaken in 

the initial 60-day phase. 

Mr. Sammon, you said that what allowed for this progress, this 

rather remarkable process, was that investment justifications were 

moved up between TSA and the Agency. Do you mean FEMA? 

Mr. SAMMON. The applying agency. 

Mr. ROTHMAN. The applying agency. 

Mr. SAMMON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROTHMAN. And you said the ranking was moved up. 

Mr. SAMMON. When we issued guidance back for the fiscal year 

2008, we made a simplified process in terms of putting in five categories of projects, and each category, depending upon which one 

you wanted to apply for, received a different score. So, for instance 

if you wanted to train employees, you get a score of five. If you 

wanted to put cameras in suburban bus yards, you might get a 

score of two or one. So, it is very transparent. The agencies can see 

it up front. They understand if I apply for this, here is how I will 

score. 

Mr. ROTHMAN. And how was it done previously? 

Mr. SAMMON. Previously, people would submit complex applications, lots of paperwork, and then a whole room of experts would 

sit around the table and look at them, judge them, and argue about 

them. It was a complex process. 

Mr. ROTHMAN. Are you saying that a group of people do not 

evaluate them before they put the number on them? 

Mr. SAMMON. The numbers are assigned—there is a 60-day period from when the application is closed until TSA is finished with 

them. 

Mr. ROTHMAN. And who puts the numbers on them? 

Mr. SAMMON. TSA looks, for example, if it is training, they will 

put a five. 

Mr. ROTHMAN. Okay. So you feel you do not need that room full 

of folks that you relied on previously. You can now do that with 

a different group? 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
142 

Mr. SAMMON. It is still a set of subject matter experts, but they 

get to the answer much quicker than they did before. 

Mr. ROTHMAN. And how is that, sir? 

Mr. SAMMON. Because, for instance, if you are applying for training, training is in the first category, the highest priority. If it is a 

training application, they see it is someone wants to train 500 bus 

drivers with security awareness training, the project is scored a 

five, and now it moves along. 

Mr. ROTHMAN. So in other words you have set up a system where 

certain categories of work are automatically assigned a number. 

Mr. SAMMON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROTHMAN. So now all you have to do is find out where the 

application plugs in. 

Mr. SAMMON. Yes. 

Mr. ROTHMAN. Whereas before you on an ad hoc individual 

basis—— 

Mr. SAMMON. Yes. 

Mr. ROTHMAN [continuing]. Decided what the number would be. 

Mr. SAMMON. And they would all have to compare all the voluminous number of applications to one another to see where they 

ranked and how they fit. 

Mr. ROTHMAN. And so now you compare the five, four, three, two, 

ones with each other. 

Mr. SAMMON. Yes. 

Mr. ROTHMAN. And then you rank them. 

Mr. SAMMON. We also look at the rank, the agency’s risk score. 

So, for instance, the New York Transit Agency would have a higher 

score than a smaller—— 

FUNDING FOR FY2010

Mr. ROTHMAN. One other fast question if I may. It is more of a 

comment. You know, coming from the Northeast, Mr. Chairman, 

Mr. Ranking Member, New Jersey, in particular, probably one of 

the highest risk target centers in the country, I am not certain that 

I would want to zero out the 2010 capital budget for rail security, 

especially since, as Mr. Ashley said, every penny of 2009 has been 

obligated—excuse me—of 2006, 2007, and 2008 have been obligated, and 2009 will be obligated within 60 days from April 8th? 

Mr. ASHLEY. If I could also add, in the process that TSA has 

taken place in 2009, all of the projects for 2009, as Mr. Sammon 

mentioned, are approved. These are projects that are being obligated. They are not financially obligated, but they have identified 

needs that are moving forward. 

Mr. ROTHMAN. Okay. So all the more reason if I may make the 

plug for not zeroing out the capital budget for 2010, that we keep 

this progress going, and provide sufficient resources for capital 

projects as well as operational. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Carter. 

MEETING WITH GRANTEES ON EXPENDITURES

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

So you can go have these meeting with these folks around the 

country to find out how they are spending the money, is that right? 

Mr. SAMMON. Yes, sir. 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
143 

Mr. CARTER. That was not thought of in 2006? We just laid it out 

there and forgot about it, or what happened there? 

Mr. SAMMON. Well, I do not think anyone forgot about it. FEMA 

is the fiduciary agency for the money in terms of where the money 

is spent. The money is drawn against their account and that is 

what they primarily do. What we wanted to do is make sure, however, and I also see on an ongoing basis when talking to MTA, Los 

Angeles Sheriff’s Department, Tom Lambert down in Houston, for 

instance, he trained 2,200 of his front-line employees with transit 

grant money. So in our normal conversations we have with agencies, people are doing things. In terms of their insight, in terms of 

their capital projects, where they are in terms of between the state 

and the local entities and design, engineering, construction, those 

things do take longer; however we do believe that the length of the 

draw is lengthy and the Committee deserves a complete understanding of where the money is and what we are doing to speed 

it up. 

RAIL TRANSIT SECURITY

Mr. CARTER. When you say transit, is it a priority on rail and 

bus that we are talking about? 

Mr. SAMMON. It is. 

Mr. CARTER. We spent lots of money on air. 

Mr. SAMMON. Yes. This is for intracity rail and bus. 

Mr. CARTER. I unfortunately took the train from Texas to Washington because of surgery I had, and I thought about it the entire 

way because they stopped in—well, I got on in Taylor, Texas. 

Mr. SAMMON. Yes. 

Mr. CARTER. And I can assure you there was zero security in 

Taylor, Texas. And I put two very heavy bags on there because my 

wife was with me. [Laughter.] 

We are not on television, are we? 

And I thought about that. I mean, I thought this is not any different than traveling on the train when I was a little kid going to 

visit my grandmother in Tennessee from Houston, Texas. I saw no 

security whatsoever anywhere. And it did not worry me because I 

just figured I am one of these fatalists, it either will happen or it 

will not. But it really ought to worry us because I had to go all the 

way to Chicago, from Chicago all the way across the top of the 

country to Washington. Never saw any security anywhere. 

Mr. SAMMON. Sir, I went to New York last week from D.C. Amtrak security at Union Station, you see they have guards and they 

have other security traveling on the train to New York. A police officer with a dog is checking, stopping the dog at the bags. So, Amtrak does look at what they perceive to be higher threat locations, 

and they tend to concentrate all the security resources there. For 

instance, they have also spent a lot of time and money, you know, 

hardening the tunnel into New York. They are looking at what do 

they think the highest target threats would be, and I think they 

focus their resources there. And they do, particularly in the Northeast corridor. 

Mr. CARTER. I will be corrected. I did see security in Chicago. I 

will say that. 

Mr. SAMMON. Okay. 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
144 

MEETING WITH GRANTEES ON EXPENDITURES

Mr. CARTER. But I guess what I am wondering about is that if 

I am hearing what you are saying, you are going to go find out how 

they are spending the money and how they are processing it out, 

and I am just assuming that some places you go the plan is going 

to be how you secure Amtrak, and it seems to me that ought to be 

reported to you on a, I would think, monthly basis or at least a 

quarterly basis from the start of the program so you know what 

they are doing, and that is why it is curious for me that it seems 

to me you are going to go back and check on how they are spending 

the money. 

Mr. SAMMON. Yes, Amtrak does have a direct grant in terms of 

the appropriation. There is a direct amount for Amtrak that is 

carved out of the overall grant appropriation for transportation. We 

have worked with Amtrak closely for the past number of years to 

encourage them, particularly, to do things such as more dogs, more 

patrols, those kinds of things. Again, that is the kind of money you 

can spend faster. You get more up-front security. 

Back in 2007, for instance, in the process we brought the New 

York Police Department to enter the grant process to get the people 

who are actually providing the front-line security into this process 

so we get those applications for funds to folks who are securing 

subways in New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles. 

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Ms. Lowey. 

DELAYS IN DRAWDOWN OF FUNDS

Ms. LOWEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this second hearing. I just want to clarify a couple of points. 

While a significant amount of money waiting to be drawn down 

could be problematic, that does not mean that the local governments are ignoring their responsibilities, and I encourage my colleagues to not simply look at drawn down figures and make conclusions about the effectiveness of certain programs. I am really confident that if you would examine security operations in New York, 

which Chairman Price and I did in November, you would be truly 

impressed with how the grants have been spent in the area that 

is the likeliest target of an attack. 

However, I would like to share an example that provides insight 

into the delays from when money is appropriated to when it is 

drawn down. For the fiscal year 2008 transit grant, New York 

State submitted investment justifications in August 2008. Until 

last week, maybe because you knew you were coming before the 

Committee, until last week the state heard nothing from TSA or 

FEMA, and last week FEMA sent the state a letter claiming that 

transit security funds had been released in November. 

The problem is no one contacted the State in November, and it 

took five months from the time DHS has issued the grant award 

notice to when it notified the State that money could be spent. 

COMMUNICATION WITH GRANTEES

Now, I understand the need to be a rigid system in place and I 

have been reviewing this and the recommendations, but DHS just 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
145 

has to do a better job communicating with grantees, and when 

grants are awarded recipients should be notified immediately. 

Would either of you care to comment on that? 

Mr. ASHLEY. Sure. I can comment on it, and part of this is the 

confusion of when the grant is made. We have a competitive process and in the transit programs for the Tier 1 agencies there is a 

target allocation given, and then we award. Last year, I believe, 

New York State was awarded $175 million, and an announcement 

of that award took place on May 16th or so last year. 

In the process, the investment justifications as Mr. Sammon was 

talking about earlier took place after the fact. After that award was 

made, TSA in New York went back and forth with the development 

of what that was. We received from TSA at that point an ‘‘authorization to spend,’’ if you will: ‘‘projects are good—move forward.’’ 

Also what occurred, as referring to in that November letter, is 

when we obligate the funds in the financial system and say those 

funds are now committed in the federal fiscal year they are notified 

that those funds are committed to New York. Those funds are obligated and cannot be taken away. At the same time that is going 

on (while FEMA is doing its fiduciary management), TSA is currently working on the programmatics of the grant to make approval on a project-by-project basis. That is also the part that Mr. 

Sammon spoke about that has now been accelerated up to the front 

end of the process, eliminating that dual (what you are referring 

to) notification to the State. 

Ms. LOWEY. That does not make any sense to me at all. Does it 

make sense to you? 

Mr. ASHLEY. Okay. 

Ms. LOWEY. Do you think that is a great system that the justifications were submitted—I mean—— 

Mr. ASHLEY. In 2008, it was not a great process in taking that 

two-step process. 

Ms. LOWEY. But why did it take until—I am just reading from 

these notes here—why did FEMA send a letter last week that the 

transit security funds can be released in November? In other 

words—— 

Mr. ASHLEY. Because we—— 

Ms. LOWEY [continuing]. You messed up? 

Mr. ASHLEY. No, ma’am. We just received the authorization from 

TSA within the last couple of weeks for the 2008 funds, to release 

those funds to New York to be spent. 

Ms. LOWEY. Well, I am glad you are reviewing the process. I will 

not belabor the point, but I also want to make it clear to my distinguished Chairman because he was in New York with me, that 

nearly all the funds have been obligated to New York. Now, there 

may be some areas of the country, and we have talked before about 

formulas and risk, that do not feel the urgency that we feel in New 

York. We know what the threat is. I am thrilled when I see those 

dogs at Grand Central Station. I am delighted that the feeder 

routes have dogs, not on all of them, they rotate, and I think it is 

important. 

So as I understand it, because we checked, nearly all of the funding in New York has been obligated and I think it is very important that you do not hold the state and locals responsible for fedVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:01 Jul 21, 2009 Jkt 050121 PO 00000 Frm 00145 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\50121P2.XXX 50121P2

CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
146 

eral problems. So I would hope that the federal government is 

working aggressively to streamline the program, but in areas of the 

highest risk I think it is essential that the money keep flowing because, boy, we could use more dogs. It really works very well. 

FEMA’S RISK FORMULA

And I wanted to mention another program. FEMA’s risk formula 

used to distribute the grants values threat at 20—I am finished 

with that, okay, but I would be interested to know, Mr. Chairman, 

and perhaps they can respond to me, why is the actual threat of 

an attack worth only one-fifth of the risk formula? I think that is 

pretty important when you are putting together—— 

Mr. PRICE. It is important. Please respond briefly, and then you 

can elaborate for the record if you wish. 

Mr. SAMMON. Again, the threat is one part of it that is very important. The threat information comes and goes, but it is a very important portion. The vulnerability and consequence of the formula 

take into account underground riders, passengers, and so forth. So, 

in that formula, New York always scores very high because the 

MTA has the higher passenger density and is many times more 

than any system in the whole country. And of those that are very 

high, threat kind of adds on top of that as another item. 

You can quantify it clearly by the passenger density, and underground tunnel, and miles and so on and so forth, and threat is 

more of a qualitative thing, so it is kept in that proportion. 

Ms. LOWEY. I will not pursue that but you still have to convince 

me that threat should not be more than—should not be more than 

20 percent. 

Mr. SAMMON. And that is a very good observation to discuss. 

Ms. LOWEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

DRAW-DOWN FIGURES FOR NEW YORK

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, and I would say to my colleague the 

draw-down figures for New York are part of the reason we are having these hearings. Yes, the funds have been obligated but the 

draw-down is alarmingly slight, and so these monies need to flow 

and, of course, New York City needs to have the highest priority 

in terms of addressing these needs. 

Ms. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, we are looking at that as well because I understand part of the problem is that the locals have not 

been reimbursed, so we are trying to figure out what the issue is 

here, and maybe the whole system, because as I understand it, it 

was explained to me when I asked the question, it does not mean 

that these programs are not being carried out. They have not necessarily been reimbursed in the most effective responsible way. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I think you bring up a good point, and that 

is what we are looking at as well, so the funding has been obligated, and that does not necessarily mean that the security programs have not been accomplished. They just have not been reimbursed. 

Mr. SAMMON. And Rep. Lowey, that is why I will be in New York 

on Thursday morning. 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
147 

Mr. PRICE. New York obviously has a major stake in this review 

process. We have asked the agency to expedite, you know, within 

this four-month timeframe. 

Ms. LOWEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Ruppersberger. 

REDUCING APPROPRIATIONS

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Thank you. I was not here when the comment was made, so maybe it was not made exactly how I heard it 

or someone else told me that they heard it. One of the issues was 

raised that because we cannot move the money quickly enough, 

then maybe we should not be appropriating as much money, and 

that it was something that you were going to look at or that might 

be an option to look at. If that is the case, I want to try to address 

the issue. 

To begin with, management is about getting the best people you 

can get, getting the resources to do the job, and then holding people 

accountable. Now, a lot of times things like an issue such as grants 

is you do not have enough people, you do not have enough technology, or management is not doing their job, so, you know, that 

is something that we would try to find out from an oversight point 

of view, but I am going to get parochial to an extent. 

I represent a district that has NSA in the district, Fort Meade, 

BWI Airport, Port of Baltimore, Aberdeen. It is considered the 

Washington Metropolitan Area, including Virginia and Maryland. 

If we do not deal with the issue probably of mass transit, it will 

be worse than California, and it is getting close to that right now. 

So there is going to be a lot of activity in rail, there is a lot of activity, as you know, with homeland security. I was just at BWI Airport yesterday meeting with a lot of employees at the TSO at TSA. 

FUNDING PRIORITIES

So I would like you to respond. I think there are numerous needs 

and, unfortunately, I believed strongly when Homeland Security 

was stood up, that there was a lot of mismanagement of money 

going to places that were not really where they needed to be, and 

I believe now it is coming around a lot better and focusing on reality of where the money is supposed to go. 

Could you respond to the issue of what you are going to look at 

as far as the money is concerned because I would like to take you 

on a tour of my district. New York is a big city, I love New York, 

and what is the song, I love New York. I am a bad singer. But I 

really think the needs are there, and it is unfortunate if we cannot 

get the money to the front-line as quickly as possible. 

I was in local government for 18 years, and I always had a problem when the feds pressed down the state with grants, the state 

presses down on the locals, and the locals do not have any place 

to press. So the quicker and the better we can get that money is 

going to be helpful. Could you respond? 

Mr. SAMMON. Yes. Well, in terms of Baltimore, it is included in 

the National Capital District in terms of for grants, which is a 

highly rated district. It shares Baltimore. By doing so it shares the 

risk rating and the threat rating that Rep. Lowey is referring to 

at the national level, that Washington, D.C. has. So, in terms of 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
148 

being in the group because we want to look at this as a regional 

process because obviously Maryland transportation agencies interface, coming back and forth to Washington. We have been working 

closely with the folks in Maryland to get transit priorities and 

grant money to them, working with them more in terms of operational funds, getting the kinds of things—people on the ground 

kind of funds that we think are important to get to secure the system because, again, the issue, when I think we get into this in 

terms of process-wise, looking at how long it takes to build a capital project, we are going to see more time. But we believe we can 

get money flushed out more quickly for operational costs in terms 

of paying for police, paying for overtime, paying for dogs, paying for 

mobil screening, those kinds of things. 

TESTING AND DEPLOYING SCREENING EQUIPMENT

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. There is another issue too—do I have 

enough time? On the recovery bill, I believe there is $1 billion to 

TSA. We talk about resources to do the job to protect our citizens. 

Detection capabilities, detection systems that have been used and 

on a test basis I know there is one at BWI Airport as an example. 

We need to do more than that. Is there a focus in Homeland Security working with the manufacturers of this equipment and has 

testing been done so that we can start using more of this equipment which will help our people on the front-line protecting us? 

Mr. SAMMON. Well, I think we are looking at acquiring more of 

the whole body imagers which gives us the capability to see threat 

items on folks in a—— 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. My question, I want to get specific, there 

is detection equipment out there. 

Mr. SAMMON. Yes. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Are we on top of it? Are we starting to put 

it out there? Have we tested it? Is it where we should go? 

Mr. SAMMON. With the whole body imagers what we are seeing 

is that the key thing we were worried about that is the throughput time. We are seeing through-puts raise significantly. The other 

piece you will see more is AT X-ray. The advantage of AT X-ray 

is it is a programmable platform that we can—as we see threat 

streams changing, we can put those kinds of materials, different 

liquids, other kinds of things into the machines to detect. If it only 

sees metal, it only sees—— 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. There are a lot of—how about an electronic 

baggage screening program? 

Mr. SAMMON. Well, a large portion of that billion dollars I believe 

is going for in-line EDS systems in airports. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Now you are talking about intelligence. Intelligence is very important—— 

Mr. SAMMON. Yes. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER [continuing]. In protecting us against terrorism and there needs to be a lot of communication, but from an 

intelligence point of view when you are moving forward with this 

equipment you have pilot programs at most airports. 

Mr. SAMMON. Yes. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Are you using your intelligence to put it in 

places such as New York, such as other high-risk areas. 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
149 

Mr. SAMMON. Yes. In terms of looking at the priorities and the 

rankings of those airports, and we also use intelligence. We talked 

about the program, the AT X-rays, to see what people are looking 

for on the Internet in terms of folks looking at possible threat 

streams and able to program those kinds of materials into those xray machines. 

GRANT PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Finally, my time is up, the other issue is 

I asked the question at the beginning, but I really would like you 

to focus on the fact when you have an administrative situation that 

you are not getting out the grant or there is a breakdown, in my 

opinion you do not put that money into a situation—— 

Mr. SAMMON. Right. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER [continuing]. That is not going to work, but 

I think you need to come back and focus on where the money needs 

to go. Money is a priority in programs that have worked, programs 

that make a difference. And so I would hope when you are evaluating this do not use it as an excuse not to give money when in 

fact it is the mistake of administration. 

Mr. SAMMON. I agree 100 percent, and that is why we pushed in 

2007 for the supplemental appropriation to add the operational 

costs for deterrence. There was a RAND report in October of 2007, 

if you look at the—as was mentioned by Mr. Ashley—the cost/benefit return on investment, those kinds of things were the first level 

of priorities that you get the best bang for your buck. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. I am happy to say that some of the gentleman’s questions provide a nice segue into our next hearing. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Well, that is why I did it. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. PRICE. Thanks for your help. Many of them do pertain, obviously, to aviation security; maybe even more than rail and transit 

security. 

With that, we are going to seque into our second panel. I do appreciate your gentlemen appearing. Let me just underscore a couple of things in terms of our remaining questions and also our expectations. We obviously greet as good news the streamlined process that you announced this morning for the 2009 grant funds. 

However, Mr. Rothman was getting into some important questions 

and I want to ask you to, in a more systematic way, provide for 

the record an accounting of exactly what we are gaining and losing 

in terms of the substance of that review process. 

Going from 285 days to zero is of course what we have been asking for in a way, but seems to me legitimate questions have been 

raised and remain about the state role, for example, in this kind 

of expedited process you are describing, the place of the kind of 

peer review that you have conducted and that you have from time 

to time touted as a value and perhaps other things that we have 

not raised. 

Are these processes simply being compressed? Are they going to 

be eliminated or going to be modified? We would like a more systematic accounting for the record of what this rather dramatic 

change is going to entail in terms of not just the timing of the process, but also the content of the TSA component of this process. And 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
150 

then secondly, we do look forward to your accounting of the disposition of these 2006 through 2008 grant funds. 

[The information follows:] 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
151 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 225 here 50121A.088
152 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 226 here 50121A.089
153 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 227 here 50121A.090
154 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 228 here 50121A.091
155 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 229 here 50121A.092
156 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 230 here 50121A.093
157 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 231 here 50121A.094
158 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 232 here 50121A.095
159 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 03 here 50121A.096
160 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 04 here 50121A.097
161 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 235 here 50121A.098
162 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 236 here 50121A.099
163 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 05 here 50121A.100
164 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 238 here 50121A.101
165 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 239 here 50121A.102
166 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 240 here 50121A.103
167 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 241 here 50121A.104
168 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 242 here 50121A.105
169 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 243 here 50121A.106
170 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 244 here 50121A.107
171 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 245 here 50121A.108
172 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 246 here 50121A.109
173 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 247 here 50121A.110
174 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 248 here 50121A.111
175 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 249 here 50121A.112
176 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 250 here 50121A.113
177 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 251 here 50121A.114
178 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 252 here 50121A.115
179 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 253 here 50121A.116
180 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 254 here 50121A.117
181 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 255 here 50121A.118
182 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 256 here 50121A.119
183 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 257 here 50121A.120
184 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 258 here 50121A.121
185 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 259 here 50121A.122
186 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 260 here 50121A.123
187 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 261 here 50121A.124
188 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 262 here 50121A.125
189 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 263 here 50121A.126
190 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 264 here 50121A.127
191 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 265 here 50121A.128
192 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 266 here 50121A.129
193 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 267 here 50121A.130
194 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 268 here 50121A.131
195 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 269 here 50121A.132
196 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 270 here 50121A.133
197 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 271 here 50121A.134
198 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 272 here 50121A.135
199 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 273 here 50121A.136
200 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 274 here 50121A.137
201 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 275 here 50121A.138
202 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 276 here 50121A.139
203 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 277 here 50121A.140
204 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 278 here 50121A.141
205 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 279 here 50121A.142
206 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 280 here 50121A.143
207 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 281 here 50121A.144
208 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 282 here 50121A.145
209 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 283 here 50121A.146
210 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 284 here 50121A.147
211 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 285 here 50121A.148
212 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 286 here 50121A.149
213 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 287 here 50121A.150
214 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 288 here 50121A.151
215 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 289 here 50121A.152
216 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 290 here 50121A.153
217 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 291 here 50121A.154
218 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 292 here 50121A.155
219 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 293 here 50121A.156
220 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 294 here 50121A.157
221 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 295 here 50121A.158
222 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 296 here 50121A.159
223 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 297 here 50121A.160
224 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 298 here 50121A.161
225 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 299 here 50121A.162
226 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 300 here 50121A.163
227 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 301 here 50121A.164
228 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 302 here 50121A.165
229 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 303 here 50121A.166
230 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 304 here 50121A.167
231 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 305 here 50121A.168
232 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 306 here 50121A.169
233 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 307 here 50121A.170
234 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 308 here 50121A.171
235 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 309 here 50121A.172
236 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 310 here 50121A.173
237 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 311 here 50121A.174
238 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 312 here 50121A.175
239 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 313 here 50121A.176
240 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 314 here 50121A.177
241 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 315 here 50121A.178
242 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 316 here 50121A.179
243 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 317 here 50121A.180
244 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 318 here 50121A.181
245 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 319 here 50121A.182
246 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 320 here 50121A.183
247 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 321 here 50121A.184
248 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 322 here 50121A.185
249 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 323 here 50121A.186
250 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 324 here 50121A.187
251 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 325 here 50121A.188
252 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 326 here 50121A.189
253 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 327 here 50121A.190
254 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 328 here 50121A.191
255 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 329 here 50121A.192
256 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 330 here 50121A.193
257 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 331 here 50121A.194
258 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 332 here 50121A.195
259 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 333 here 50121A.196
260 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 334 here 50121A.197
261 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 335 here 50121A.198
262 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 336 here 50121A.199
263 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 337 here 50121A.200
264 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 338 here 50121A.201
265 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 339 here 50121A.202
266 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 340 here 50121A.203
267 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 341 here 50121A.204
268 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 342 here 50121A.205
269 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 343 here 50121A.206
270 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 344 here 50121A.207
271 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 345 here 50121A.208
272 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 346 here 50121A.209
273 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 347 here 50121A.210
274 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 348 here 50121A.211
275 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 349 here 50121A.212
276 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 350 here 50121A.213
277 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 351 here 50121A.214
278 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 352 here 50121A.215
279 

We will expect 30 day periodic updates with the staff, and then 

we expect a 120 day full accounting with the Subcommittee. With 

that, we thank you for your work and for your testimony here 

today, and we turn to our second panel. During the second portion 

of the hearing we will hear from Ms. Gale Rossides, the acting Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration. 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING

CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
(281) 

TUESDAY, MARCH 31, 2009. 

IMPROVING THE EFFICIENCY OF THE AVIATION 

SECURITY SYSTEM 

WITNESS 

GALE ROSSIDES, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN PRICE

Mr. PRICE. We will be focusing on TSA’s efforts to improve the 

efficiency of the aviation security system. Now, we members have 

a lot of experience with this. It is one of those things that everybody has an opinion about. We fly at least twice a week, 40 weeks 

a year. Time and time again we encounter the aviation security 

system, and we also hear a lot from our constituents. 

We wonder, they wonder, when we will be able to bring liquids 

above three ounces in our carry on bags or when we will be able 

to stop dragging our bags over to the explosive detection system in 

the middle of the airport’s lobby. So we all have some experience 

with this but we clearly will welcome the chance this morning for 

a more systematic review. 

Our Subcommittee’s task over the years has been to help TSA 

find ways to more expeditiously move airline travelers, their luggage and air cargo, while at the same time strengthening security. 

Since 2002, Congress has appropriated over $44 billion for aviation 

security activities, including $1 billion in the recently enacted economic recovery package. 

This recent appropriation should accelerate the installation of inline explosive detection systems at airports nationwide and the development of technologies that would allow passengers to bring liquids of any size aboard on aircraft. The results have been slow in 

coming, and today we want to talk about what progress TSA has 

made in improving overall efficiency and what kind of progress we 

can anticipate in the future. 

Our concerns have also been voiced repeatedly about the pending 

general aviation rule on large aircraft security. That is another 

thing we hear plenty about. While it is critical to ensure the security of air travel, whether in the commercial aviation sector or with 

general aviation, security regulations should not pose an unwieldy 

financial or logistical burden on the general aviation community. 

Any new security requirement the government imposes on the 

public must strike a balance between tighter security and the need 

to ensure minimal disruption of the movement of goods and people 

in our economy. I know TSA is, as we speak, in the process of 

weighing these costs and benefits and continues to work with the 

affected stakeholders. I, and many others, have urged that course 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
282 

on the agency. Today we want to discuss the status of this pending 

rule and what alternatives TSA is continuing. 

Finally, with the adoption of the 9/11 Act, TSA was given several 

mandates, including tighter air cargo screening procedures. The 

Act specified that by February of 2009, 50 percent of all air cargo 

being carried on passenger aircraft must be screened and 100 percent of this cargo must be screened by August 2010. 

While TSA has informed the Subcommittee that it has met the 

50 percent mandate, GAO recently has questioned this assertion. 

On March 18, 2009, GAO testified that TSA cannot verify this level 

of cargo screening and that TSA is still working to establish a system to ensure 50 percent screening which might be ready by next 

month. Now, this in theory was the easier mandate to meet. Reaching 100 percent will be a much greater challenge. 

Today we want to discuss how you can assure the Subcommittee 

that you are meeting the 50 percent deadline, what is working well 

so far and what challenges you face, and how you are going to 

stretch to meet this 100 percent requirement. I have publicly stated 

this is an important mandate. I believe that it is. I believe it is one 

TSA can meet, although I do recognize that it is easier said than 

done, perhaps, with respect to the timeframe we have set. 

So welcome, Ms. Rossides. I look forward to your testimony this 

morning. I want to ask you, as we do all of our witnesses, to take 

five minutes to summarize your written statement and we will put 

that entire statement in the record. Before you do that, I want to 

recognize our distinguished Ranking Member, Mr. Rogers, for his 

comments. 

[The information follows:] 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
283 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 358 50121A.216
284 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 359 50121A.217
285 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Rossides, welcome 

to the Subcommittee. Despite being one of TSA’s first employees, 

today marks your first appearance before the Subcommittee, so 

welcome. Thank you for appearing today. We notice you have 

brought along some tissue paper. I promise you we will not bring 

you to tears. 

As I have said many times before, I am concerned TSA’s approach to aviation security too often falls back upon an over reliance on costly manpower rather than efficiencies gained through 

technology. I acknowledge the airport environment is immensely 

challenging given the confluence of confined space and tight time 

schedules. All the more reason for investing in the latest screening 

technologies that can accurately and efficiently detect dangerous 

items while also reducing the staffing footprint. 

It is no secret that this has been one of the highest priorities of 

this Subcommittee and the Congress since the inception of TSA. In 

fact, we have provided nearly $2 billion for EDS procurement in 

just the last three years. Hefty sums that I hope are having the 

intended effects. Today, I look forward to learning more about how 

this sizeable investment in screening technology is allowing TSA to 

meet its mission requirements more effectively and more efficiently. 

I also note that this major increase in funding places TSA’s procurement efforts on par with the annual funding levels of other 

large scale DHS acquisition programs, such as SBInet and Deepwater, and yet, TSA’s acquisitions continue to be based upon what 

appear to be year to year needs rather than a strategic multiyear 

approach. So I hope we can discuss that today, how TSA is managing its acquisitions to meet its goals across all of its aviation security programs. 

From the inspection of carry on and checked baggage to the 

screening of passengers to the inspection of air cargo, TSA’s efforts 

are certainly vital to keeping us all safe and secure. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

[The information follows:] 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
286 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 363 50121A.218
287 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 364 50121A.219
288 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 365 50121A.220
289 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Ms. Rossides, please proceed. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF GALE ROSSIDES

Ms. ROSSIDES. Good morning, Chairman Price, Ranking Member 

Rogers, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee. Thank 

you for the opportunity to appear today to testify on the Transportation Security Administration’s efforts to improve aviation security. As we are pressed for time, I will keep this brief and request 

that my written testimony be included in the official hearing 

record. 

I am appearing before you today to discuss aviation security 

while serving in an acting capacity which is required in order to 

maintain a level of security during the transition period between 

the administrations. In the Department of Homeland Security, continuity of our mission was assured by designating the career position of Deputy Administrator of TSA as the acting Assistant Secretary. 

As such, I am honored to serve in these positions and to appear 

before you today. I would like to begin by thanking the members 

of the Subcommittee for their leadership, their oversight, and support of our evolving initiatives which are continually discussed in 

transportation security. By providing us with our 2009 appropriation at the beginning of this fiscal year we have been able to sustain progress on our planned enhancements through the Presidential transition. 

In addition, I especially want to thank the Subcommittee for the 

resources that were provided to TSA in the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act. We are working to ensure the prompt expenditure of these funds, which will further accelerate the deployment 

of TSA’s explosives detection capabilities in airports throughout the 

country. 

The Subcommittee’s efforts over these seven short years since 

TSA was created have enabled us to grow from a small cadre of 

employees to a dedicated workforce of over 50,000—protecting 

every domestic commercial airport, strengthening security in all 

transportation modes and doing so through the strong stakeholder 

engagement in the U.S. and around the world. 

We have continually improved our people, processes, technologies, and partnerships and achieved some noteworthy milestones during this transition period. First, I am pleased to announce that on January 27, Secure Flight began operational cut 

over of the first air carrier and now has four carriers participating. 

TSA truly appreciates the cooperation of these volunteer air carriers. Our experience thus far has been a good one and has validated the program choices we made. 

This initial operating capability is a major milestone in the history of our agency and is a credit to all in both branches of our government who made this security enhancement a reality. In addition 

to my staff, I would like to thank, specifically, the DHS Screening 

Coordination Office, and especially Ms. Cathy Berrick and the GAO 

staff for their superb work with us in this program. 

Our goal for the Secure Flight Program is to assume responsibility for watch list matching of passengers for all domestic comVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:01 Jul 21, 2009 Jkt 050121 PO 00000 Frm 00289 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\50121P2.XXX 50121P2

CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
290 

mercial flights by the late spring of 2010 and all international commercial flights by the end of 2010. 

Second, in February, we were to have met the mandate to screen 

50 percent of cargo transported on passenger aircraft. I am pleased 

to inform the Subcommittee that based on the carriers’ reports, a 

conservative analysis of the data indicates that the milestone has 

been met. 

Third, on March 26, we issued our one millionth transportation 

worker identification credential, and to address the surge we expect 

in the final and two largest sectors that are to come into compliance, L.A./Long Beach and Houston, we have set up additional enrollment centers. Finally, I will close by thanking this Subcommittee for the support of our workforce transformation efforts 

over the last several years. 

These accomplishments have been remarkable and can be represented by the role our Transportation Security Officers (TSOs) 

Inspectors and Federal Air Marshals played in the Presidential inauguration. Three hundred TSOs served in support of the United 

States Secret Service and provided screening expertise at checkpoints along the parade route and for the inauguration. 

FAMs, TSOs, and inspectors served on VIPR teams and more 

than 30 TSA canine teams were deployed. TSA personnel at the 

Transportation Security Operations Center provided an around the 

clock watch in partnership with the FAA, Department of Defense, 

and other DHS, state and local agencies to coordinate and monitor 

activities through the four-day event. The FAMs provided significant coverage of all commercial flights in and out of the National 

Capitol Region. 

It truly is my honor to serve alongside the men and women of 

TSA who are, in my opinion, everyday heroes. I could report even 

more, but in the interest of time will end my remarks. I thank you, 

and I am happy to answer your questions. 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
291 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 06 here 50121.001
292 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 07 here 50121.002
293 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 08 here 50121.003
294 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 09 here 50121.004
295 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 010 here 50121.005
296 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 011 here 50121.006
297 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 012 here 50121.007
298 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 013 here 50121.008
299 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 014 here 50121.009
300 

AIR CARGO SCREENING PROGRESS

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, and let me say we are particularly 

pleased to receive the report about the 50 percent target. We know 

there has been some scrutiny of this by the GAO. We will look forward to their scrutiny of the documentation you can provide for the 

achievement you cite this morning. Let me move to what I think 

we would all agree is a more difficult question and that is the next 

goal of 100 percent screening of the cargo to be carried in the hold 

of passenger planes. That is what we are talking about here. 

We know that this 100 percent goal by August of next year is an 

ambitious goal but an important one. To reach that goal you developed the certified cargo screening program which would permit certified supply chain facilities to screen air cargo using a variety of 

technologies prior to delivering the cargo to the air carrier through 

a secure chain of custody. I think we all understand that making 

that system work is absolutely essential to reaching this goal. 

The certified cargo screening facilities must adhere to TSA mandated security standards. Earlier this year you began a limited 

Phase I roll out in the 18 major gateways focusing on shippers in 

nine cities and freight forwarders in all 18 airport markets. This 

work is all being done domestically. Eventually, a similar program 

is going to need to occur overseas. 

I know you plan to evaluate the success of this program, before 

it can be expanded nationwide. So let me ask you just a few related 

questions on this matter. First of all, what kind of general assessment can you give us of how these certified cargo screening pilots 

have gone? What kind of problems have you encountered? Easier, 

harder than expected? 

Part of all this of course is having the ability to secure cargo with 

tamper evident technology so that there is assurance that it has 

been screened at the point of assembly of the pallet, let us say, and 

that it has not been tampered with. How are you ensuring that 

once physical screening has been completed and the package or pallet has been sealed it will not be tampered with later in the process? 

How far are we toward assuring this technology is working as it 

will need to? Then there is the matter of cargo coming from overseas. I think it would be helpful to the Committee just to have your 

realistic assessment of how you see this going short-term and 

longer term. Is the best way forward to screen most of this cargo 

overseas or should we assume, at least for the near term, that most 

of the cargo heading to our shores is going to have to be screened 

here and that we are going to have to have a system for doing 

that? 

Here, too, this is a major component of that 100 percent goal. So 

that is what I am asking you. How are these various efforts proceeding? What are the biggest challenges to meeting the 100 percent screening requirement by August of next year? 

Ms. ROSSIDES. Thank you, sir. First of all, let me break it down 

in terms of the domestic versus international. With respect to the 

domestic side, we are very confident that we will meet the 100 percent screening requirement by August of 2010 for domestic air 

cargo. We are doing that through a number of ways. First of all, 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
301 

our inspectors will be going out and certifying these cargo screening facilities. 

We are doing extensive out reach with the industry to identify 

these facilities. Of course, the supply chain solution is an excellent 

one to be able to spread the screening requirement across the supply chain so that we do not have a complete bottleneck at the airport locations. So, on the domestic side, we are quite confident, particularly working with the largest carriers. As you mentioned, it is 

really focused on 18 cities. 

On the international side, the challenge is much greater. As 

much as I would like to say that we are certain we would make 

that 100 percent milstone I would have to say, in all honesty it is 

probably unlikely that we could make the 100 percent milestone by 

August of 2010. Our best estimate is perhaps about 75 percent of 

the progress will be made on the international front. The challenge 

there is it represents basically 98 countries that ship by air cargo 

into the United States, and so our approach literally has to be 

country by country. 

Now, for example, in the U.K., their system, which has really 

served as a model for us, is a very, very good system, but we literally have to work with our partners through ICAO and our partners that we make through these other efforts with foreign countries get their systems to a standard that is commensurate with 

ours. That is going to be a challenge. 

We still believe that the model of the supply chain approach with 

the certified cargo screening facilities in these countries is the only 

way that we hope to have them achieve this. We will use our Inspector cadre to go out and provide both support and inspect these 

facilities, and we will also be doing a tremendous amount of outreach. Your third point about technology, the challenges are in the 

technology arena. 

As you know, the approach we are taking is that we are literally 

requiring the screening by piece of what is either assembled in a 

pallet or is shipped as a single airway billing, and so that requirement will help us ensure that it is commensurate with baggage 

screening, but that also puts quite a challenge on the industry. The 

technology that we are looking at today is everything from an ETD 

machine, which we use in the baggage area, to an EDS. 

We have also been working with the DHS Office of Science and 

Technology to see what other new technologies we can really be 

leveraging. We have asked them to invite various industry in to try 

to help provide a solution for this challenge, but it is a challenge 

from the technology, especially once everything is in a pallet of this 

size. 

TAMPER-PROOF TECHNOLOGY

Mr. PRICE. Does the assurance you have given us just now that 

this 100 percent requirement with respect to domestic cargo can be 

reached by August of next year, does that assume that well in advance of that date, this tamper-proof technology has been certified 

and has been recommended by you for use in securing these supply 

chains? 

Ms. ROSSIDES. No, sir, I cannot speak to that specifically. I would 

have to follow up with a specific—— 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
302 

Mr. PRICE. I do not see how you can offer the assurance about 

the 100 percent goal until this tampering problem is more definitively dealt with. 

Ms. ROSSIDES. I will take the question back. What the staff advises me on, with respect to the domestic, is by employing these 

certified screening facilities and ensuring that along the chain we 

have the proper measures in place, that will get us to the 100 percent milestone. But, with respect to the specific answer on the tamper proof technology, I will have to get back to you. 

[The information follows:] 

AIR CARGO CHAIN OF CUSTODY

A key characteristic of the Certified Cargo Screening Program (CCSP) is the rigorous tracking of the chain of custody, including the use of tamper-evident technology to assure that, once screened, cargo remains secured in transit to the aircraft. TSA is continually evaluating chain of custody technology and has issued procedures to all entities involved in the CCSP, as well as other members of the air 

cargo supply chain, to ensure that cargo remains secure as it moves along the air 

cargo supply chain. These procedures are Sensitive Security Information and TSA 

would be pleased to provide these to the Committee and discuss this matter further 

in the appropriate venue at the Committee’s convenience. 

INTERNATIONAL AIR CARGO SCREENING

Mr. PRICE. All right. And then, with regard to the second question about how this international cargo is going to be dealt with, 

I am not sure you stated your assumption totally clearly about how 

much of this is going to need to be dealt with in our domestic ports, 

as opposed to being handled overseas. 

Ms. ROSSIDES. Well, one of the things we are looking at is those 

countries, for example, like the U.K. and Japan, what percentage 

are they actually bringing in today. And they represent about 40 

percent. 

And so wherever we have countries that are meeting the standards today, that will be the solution we have in place. If we get to 

the point where we have other countries that cannot make it, we 

are going to have to take a decision down the line as to what to 

do in terms of those foreign countries, and whether we have to create some system here in the U.S. to address it. 

But, right now, our goal is to try to get the compliance and the 

level of screening commensurate in those countries at the point of 

origin. 

Mr. PRICE. All right. So when you say 75 percent by the appointed date for the international cargo, you are basing that on an 

assumption that you can do 75 percent of this cargo at the point 

of origination. 

Ms. ROSSIDES. Right, in these foreign countries. Correct. So what 

we are hoping is that these countries will be compliant, and then 

we will only have to go after smaller countries where actually the 

load that is coming in is much smaller. 

Mr. PRICE. Well, it does seem to me that dealing with that problem should not have to wait until a determination some years from 

now, that we are not going to be able to achieve this kind of screening at the point of origin. 

Ms. ROSSIDES. Oh, no. 

Mr. PRICE. Because there needs to be a provision obviously in the 

near term for screening this cargo on our shores, when this cannot 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
303 

be arranged overseas. And clearly, we are not going to reach 100 

percent for some time in that regard. 

Ms. ROSSIDES. Right. And right now, literally, our folks are working with folks in the U.K., in the E.U. We are reaching out. We 

are visiting foreign countries right now. We are not waiting for 

later in 2010 to address this issue. We have people who are working in these foreign countries right now, trying to get an assessment and trying to get those capabilities up in those countries. 

I did not mean to suggest that we are going to wait until 2010 

to say we have a problem. We will know much sooner than that. 

Mr. PRICE. No, I am talking about having a problem in terms of 

our ability to screen that cargo here, when it has not been screened 

overseas. 

Ms. ROSSIDES. Right. And we will know that sooner, rather 

than—— 

Mr. PRICE. All right. Mr. Rogers. 

Mr. ROGERS. I am assuming that most of that international cargo 

will be palletized cargo? 

Ms. ROSSIDES. For the most part, yes, sir. When it is coming in 

the large numbers, like from the U.K. and Japan. 

Mr. ROGERS. If you do not mind, move that microphone closer. 

Ms. ROSSIDES. I am sorry. 

EQUIPMENT FOR INSPECTION OF AIR CARGO

Mr. ROGERS. But we do not have an explosives detection machine 

yet to examine palletized cargo, do we? 

Ms. ROSSIDES. That is correct. 

Mr. ROGERS. So how will you, how will you inspect international 

cargo, either there or here, without a machine? 

Ms. ROSSIDES. Well, sir, the requirement is that it be inspected 

by the piece. So that means, it has to be inspected by the piece before it can be put in the palletized configuration. That is the expectation. And then that can be done via the ETD equipment, EDS 

equipment, canine, physical hand search of each piece, before it is 

palletized. 

UPGRADE SECURITY EQUIPMENT

Mr. ROGERS. In the last three fiscal years, TSA has received 

nearly $2 billion for EDS procurements. 

Ms. ROSSIDES. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. Specifically, $1 billion within the recent stimulus 

bill, which comes on top of the $294 million that was provided in 

2009. And this large infusion of funding in 2009 is more than four 

times the amount of funding received for FY-08. 

So happily, there is then a great infusion of monies into the explosion-detection machine field, because we have been way behind 

in that. 

However, that large infusion of money I think represents an opportunity to upgrade the security equipment at a significant number of airports. Do you have a schedule now in place about the airports you are going to upgrade? 

Ms. ROSSIDES. Yes, sir. As part of the stimulus funding, we actually have 16 airports that we are working with right now. And, as 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
304 

part of our Fiscal Year 2009 planned purchases, we have other airports that we are looking at. 

We have a schedule, we have a strategic plan. And the beauty 

of these investments is, particularly with the additional stimulus 

funds, it has allowed us to accelerate our checkpoint technology 

plan by about two years. And for our baggage area, it has allowed 

us to address airports that are ready with proposals in to us, so 

that we can ensure some quick spending of this stimulus money. 

Mr. ROGERS. Do you have the list of the 16 airports that are on 

the list? 

Ms. ROSSIDES. I do not have it with me, but yes, sir, we have 

those established. And we have notified them. We have given them 

interim letters of commitment. 

Mr. ROGERS. Will you file that with your testimony? 

Ms. ROSSIDES. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. 

[The information follows:] 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
305 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 381 here 50121A.221
306 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 382 here 50121A.222
307 

Mr. ROGERS. Now, what will happen at those airports? 

Ms. ROSSIDES. It is a combination. They will be having optimal 

screening systems put in, focusing on checked baggage. It runs a 

range from replacing in-line, replacing lobby solutions, to in-line solutions. In some cases it may be some new terminal work with additional EDS technology and in-line systems. 

And there, the advantage to us with these programs, as I said, 

they have already had their plans and proposals in to us. So, we 

are hoping that we are going to be able to address them very quickly. 

Mr. ROGERS. Are these the larger airports? 

Ms. ROSSIDES. For the most part, yes, sir. But in addition, what 

we are looking at, the combination of Fiscal Year 2009 dollars and 

stimulus dollars, is also to address some of the requirements of 

CAT 2 and 3 airports, with a reduced-size EDS, and trying to really look across the whole system as to how to best maximize the use 

of these dollars. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, it has been my experience that the place 

where we could gain fewer personnel and more technology were the 

small- and medium-sized airports, where, up until fairly recently, 

a lot of the activity was being done manually in the lobbies. And 

a single machine could save us a lot of personnel costs. 

Is that still the operating philosophy? 

Ms. ROSSIDES. Yes, sir, that is one of them. We are actually looking at equipment in our new Transportation Security Integration 

Facility over at DCA, as to how that kind of technology can be used 

for both, you know, carry-on and checked baggage in the smaller 

airports. 

NUMBER OF SCREENERS

Mr. ROGERS. And getting to the bottom line, how many screeners 

do you have there? 

Ms. ROSSIDES. Sir, we have, not including our screening managers, approximately 44,500, FTE dedicated screeners. 

Mr. ROGERS. Forty-four thousand, five hundred. 

Ms. ROSSIDES. Yes. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, that is 500 short of 45,000, is not it? 

Ms. ROSSIDES. Yes, it is, sir. 

SECURE FLIGHT

Mr. ROGERS. Magically. Secure Flight is going well? 

Ms. ROSSIDES. Yes, sir, it is, it is going very well. We have some, 

as I mentioned in my oral statement, we have four carriers already. We have three in the queue. We actually have a schedule 

now that we are working out with the major U.S. carriers in terms 

of their cut-off, cut-over dates. It is going very well. 

We are working with GAO on the final tenth condition to satisfy 

that requirement. And, I believe it is going to be very, very successful, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. Question. 

Ms. ROSSIDES. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. I am a Secure Flight recipient, say. What does that 

get me? 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
308 

Ms. ROSSIDES. Well, sir, by providing your name, your date of 

birth, and your gender, we are confident that we will have far 

fewer misidentifications for persons who are currently experiencing 

misidentification with names on the watchlist. 

So, the real benefit is for those persons who frequently get 

misidentified, who get stopped at the ticket counter, who cannot 

print their boarding passes in advance, who get questioned as to 

having to go through a redirect process. We are confident that once 

Secure Flight is on line for all carriers, that those misidentifications will be dramatically reduced. 

MASS TRANSIT SECURITY HELP

Mr. ROGERS. TSA really is the face of Homeland Security for 

most Americans, because it is where we encounter inspections and 

uniforms, and the like. 

However, a lot of people say the most vulnerable aspect of what 

TSA is doing is mass transit. Subways, rail, and the like. And as 

you know, we have just concluded the second hearing of FEMA, 

and TSA’s people on getting these rail grants, mass transit grants 

out there. 

We are all frustrated with that. Can you help us out? 

Ms. ROSSIDES. Yes, sir. Several things. One is that, as a result 

of the prior hearing really several weeks ago, we have done a ‘‘deep 

dive’’ within TSA in terms of how can we better enable that process 

to support both the FEMA process and the agencies that are the 

recipients of those funds. 

We are committed to really doing follow-up work with those 

agencies in terms of what difficulties they are having in putting 

their final plans together to execute those funds. Because our goal 

in the end, frankly, is to get those grants out, and get the intended 

use in place, that is the security advantage we are looking for. 

The other thing that we are looking at is in doing our extensive 

outreach with both rail and mass transit. We are looking at what 

other ways can we support them in not only the grants area, but 

in things like our VIPR teams and trying to find additional ways 

that we can really, you know, support their needs at the local level 

with respect to rail and mass transit. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, it is a very difficult problem. 

Ms. ROSSIDES. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. Given the number of people that use the mass transit and the exposure of the rail lines and the tunnels, and so on. 

And the need to be unobtrusive in your efforts. So I understand the 

difficulty of the task. 

However, because of the numbers involved, numbers of users of 

mass transit, it has to be addressed, and it has to be done forthwith. We have been frustrated by appropriating huge amounts of 

money, only to see it lay there being unused. And we get bureaucratic gobbledy-gook when we try to understand what the problem 

is, and how we can solve it. 

We are going to have to have you crack some heads. 

Ms. ROSSIDES. Yes, sir. 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
309 

FEMA PROBLEMS

Mr. ROGERS. And I realize that part of the difficulty is in FEMA, 

which is not under your direct jurisdiction, of course. And we do 

not expect you to defend or condemn them. 

But we are frustrated. Are you frustrated? 

Ms. ROSSIDES. Yes, sir. I am, and I share your frustrations and 

understand them. 

My experience prior to TSA with respect to grants is that they 

are sometimes very difficult to administer. I am not making excuses for FEMA at all, but I do know that there are challenges, 

both to the Federal Government in putting the funds out and for 

the recipient agencies to bring those funds in. And, we have to look 

at the whole process and make improvements on it. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, we are looking to you for that. Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Serrano. 

FOCUS ON AIR TRANSPORTATION VERSUS OTHER MODES

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

testimony, and thank you for your service. 

I probably will live to regret this statement, because I take Amtrak. And it seems that the kind of screening is nowhere near what 

we know happens at airports. And I say I will probably regret it, 

because starting next trip, I will probably receive it, too. 

My question is, have we weighed heavily on the side of air transportation as a reaction to September 11? And if so, are we then 

going after the kind of attack that already took place rather than 

paying attention, or equal attention, to the kind of attack that 

could take place? 

Again, no traveler, no commuter likes to be imposed upon. I have 

just touched on that. Or to be in the way, so to speak. But it is 

clear that there is a total difference in one. 

Now, that may be based on information that even the committee 

may not have as to what is special out there. It just seems to me 

that maybe, maybe, I am asking you, have we gone too heavy on 

that side, and not looking at the others? 

Ms. ROSSIDES. Well, sir, it is really a set of different models. In 

the aviation domain, ATSA, which created TSA, required very specific things to be done in aviation. And yes, I believe that was in 

response to 9/11, but it also, I think, demonstrated the support of 

the Subcommittee, the tremendous work that has been done and 

improvements in the aviation domain. 

The other modes of transportation really, from a federal perspective, are secured in a variety of different ways with tremendous reliance upon the state and local agency level to provide the resources, the police, the security value. 

What we do at TSA is maintain very close coordination with the 

security directors in all these different modes of transportation, 

and with people like the Amtrak security director. We see our job 

as multi-purpose. 

One is to feed them information on what the intel is, the levels 

of threat that are here in the United States to those other modes 

of transportation. 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
310 

We also have done training in the area of security in mass transit. We have looked at how do we supplement their resources with 

our program—our VIPR program, which deploys Federal Air Marshals, Inspectors, and TSOs into these other modes of transportation. 

We recognize that we do not have the federal resources to bear 

to apply the exact same model that we have in aviation, but we 

have the shared responsibility for securing those modes, as do the 

agencies and state and local governments. 

And, it is a question of how do you secure those modes, and not 

impact, commerce and the passengers, and recognizing we have, 

millions of people that travel through those other modes every day. 

So, I would say that I believe that the Congress and TSA’s response in the aftermath of September 11 has shored up and 

strengthened aviation. And, I think that what we are doing with 

these other modes of transportation is very good in terms of providing them support in a different way. 

Mr. SERRANO. Yes. It just seems to me that there is a disconnect 

of some sort. Because your statement, and it is correct, sort of 

leaves other modes of transportation at the local level, with your 

involvement. Yet the other, aviation, is totally federally controlled. 

Where I may take issue, and it is not necessarily with you personally, but a statement in general about a lack of resources to expand. I have been on this Subcommittee since it was formed, and 

if there was a Subcommittee that had a blank check, certainly for 

a while, it was this Subcommittee. We just printed the money I 

think somewhere in the basement, and a lot, a lot of money, as a 

matter of fact. 

I do not know what the figure is, Ranking Member, but it is has 

been quite a bit of money. I think only the FBI ranks up there in 

terms of the same issue where we give the FBI through Congress 

just to assign the stakes, anything they wanted. 

So I just think that there is a need to inform them as a Congress 

a little bit more about what is being done in other areas, so we do 

not have any surprises. Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Ms. Lowey. 

EMPLOYEE SCREENING

Ms. LOWEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madame Administrator, 

the Subcommittee was told many times by former Administrator 

Harley, others at the Department, that 100 percent screening of 

airport employees was not reasonable, and would significantly slow 

airport operations. 

Yet when this Subcommittee provided TSA with the resources to 

conduct the screening pilot program last year, the doomsday scenario, I understand, that was previously predicted was never realized. And in fact, the largest airport in the program, Boston’s 

Logan International, is likely to implement 100 percent employee 

screening on a full-time basis. 

Frankly, it is hard to believe that implementing this requirement 

nationally would be impossible, when two of the busiest airports in 

the world, Heathrow and de Gaulle, already do it successfully, and 

two large domestic airports, Miami and Orlando, find it critically 

important to their security. 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
311 

If you could describe to the Subcommittee what, if any, negative 

consequences were witnessed at the airports involved in last year’s 

pilot program, I would be appreciative. And do you believe it would 

be a valuable exercise to once again pilot the effectiveness of 100 

percent employee screening at another set of airports in Fiscal 

Year 2010? 

Ms. ROSSIDES. Yes, Rep. Lowey. As you know, we did a pilot of 

seven airports, Logan and Denver were the two CATXs that were 

part of that pilot. Logan did 100 percent employee screening. 

We owe you, and we owe the Subcommittee, a report, which I am 

very sorry has not gotten to you yet, on the evaluation that was 

done by the Homeland Security Institute on those seven pilots. 

In essence, the pilot program showed was that there was no clear 

distinction of the screening effectiveness between the 100 percent 

and the aggressive random screening. And, by that, what it showed 

is that every airport is different and you have to consider the operational impact and the infrastructure of an airport as to whether 

or not you could actually effectively do 100 percent screening without putting significant costs into the infrastructure and the operations. 

I would respectfully request, when we get that report to the Subcommittee as soon as possible, that we will come up and brief you, 

and then see what the way ahead would be and what the Subcommittee would be interested in doing. 

Ms. LOWEY. Okay, so we will wait for that. But I would be interested in knowing if there were any negative consequences as a result of those pilots. So if you could include that, I would be appreciative. 

Ms. ROSSIDES. Yes, ma’am. 

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING FOR TSA EMPLOYEES

Ms. LOWEY. Administrator Rossides, you called the employees of 

TSA your biggest investment and most valuable asset. Yet the 

more than 40,000 transportation security officers continue to be denied the same basic collective bargaining rights granted to other 

front-line security personnel in the federal workforce employees: 

Customs and Border Control, Immigration Customs Enforcement, 

Capital Police, Pentagon Force Protection Agency. 

And before the House adjourns this week, I will be introducing 

legislation to grant all TSA employees the right to bargain collectively. And I hope the members of this Subcommittee will join the 

effort. 

Secretary Napolitano testified before the authorizing Committee 

that she was checking with general counsel on the issue of TSO collective bargaining. 

Number one, I would like to know if you have an update on these 

discussions. Your testimony highlights the lowered attrition rates 

among TSO. Where does the 7.5 percent rank as compared to other 

federal agencies? And what is the attrition breakdown between 

full-time and part-time TSOs? 

Ms. ROSSIDES. Yes, Rep. Lowey. First of all, let me start my comments by saying that during my 30-plus years working in the Federal Government, I worked at the Treasury Department where we 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
312 

had collective bargaining for the workforce. So, I am very used to 

that in the federal workforce. 

Yes, Secretary Napolitano has indicated that she first would like 

to have a permanent Administrator in place at TSA, and is looking 

at what options she has available to her on the subject. 

I would like to offer to you that whatever the Secretary decides, 

or this Subcommittee decides, and the Congress decides, we will do 

at TSA, and we will do it very well. Because, if there are two corporate principles that I and the leadership of TSA believe in, it is 

that we owe it to the American People to provide a level of security 

that is the best in the world. And, we owe it to our employees to 

provide the very best quality of work life that we can provide to 

them. 

You mentioned the attrition rate with progress we have made in 

four years. The attrition rate and the time. The full-time attrition 

rate four years ago was over 30 percent. Today, for the voluntary 

full-timers, it is 7.5 percent. The part-time attrition rate four years 

ago was over 50 percent, and today, it is 17 percent. 

The progress in that area goes right to the heart of involving our 

employees in telling us what are things that they would like to see 

in the workplace that we could put in effect. 

So, for example, for the part-time employees, we provide full-time 

health benefits. Just doing that has significantly contributed to reducing the attrition. 

I would like to talk about injuries. Another area that TSA has 

tremendously focused on in its workforce initiatives was in the area 

of injuries. I will tell you today that we do not have the worst injury rate in the Federal Government because we have made dramatic improvements in cutting those injury rates by more than 50 

percent. 

All of this has been because our employees have been able to be 

a part of giving us the solutions. 

I believe that collective bargaining is a very serious issue. I have 

full respect for our employees’ ability today to join a union. We 

allow the employee’s representatives to represent them if there is 

any kind of discipline issue. 

And I believe that in the end, what we all want is what is in the 

best interest of our commitment to providing our mission, and what 

is in the best interest of our workforce. 

I will tell you, in all honesty, that my involvement in TSA has 

been a labor of love. And, I do not think you will meet anybody on 

this planet that wants something for the welfare of our workforce 

as I do. 

So, whatever the Secretary ultimately decides, we are 100 percent ready to make it in the best interest of our workforce. 

Ms. LOWEY. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Rodriguez. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you very much. And let me first follow 

up, you have not had to use a tissue—— 

[Laughter.] 

BUS TRAVEL

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. That is good. Let me follow up on what Congressman Serrano had talked about. We usually talk about air and 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
313 

rail. I wanted to see if you could, if nothing else, later on get me 

some information on bus travel. Because I know hundreds of thousands of people go through the bus, and I think we only provide 

some security, and we have a strategy in that area. 

Secondly, I wanted to ask you, I know we have, you know, somewhat successfully established an international register travel program on air and land with Canada. But with Mexico, we have not. 

I know we have done something there with the air program, but 

not with land. I mean, excuse me, not with the air program, and 

yes, with the land. 

And Mexico is the second-largest market for inbound travel for 

both business and leisure to the U.S. For both consecutive years, 

Mexico has been record levels on travel in the United States, totaling 9.6 billion in 2007, and the second trading partner, and in 

terms of leisure travel, as well as business. 

Why have not we established a register to travel program with 

both Canada and Mexico? 

Ms. ROSSIDES. Sir, I will have to get back to you on that. I do 

not have an answer that I can give you right now, but we will definitely follow up. 

[The information follows:] 

TSA BUS SECURITY ACTIVITIES

TSA’s Highway and Motor Carrier Division, Passenger Carrier Branch has actively initiated and broadened its security awareness training of commercial motor 

coach operators nationwide using awareness programs created both by the industry 

and by TSA/DHS grant initiatives. These programs provide 24/7 reporting facilities 

that are in direct contact with TSA’s Freedom Center operations. TSA has also leveraged DHS grant programs averaging $8 million to $10 million per year since 

2003 to implement driver shield, passenger screening and security training initiatives in the commercial motor coach industry. 

Motor carriers of passengers in the southern border region have long practiced 

heightened security procedures in direct recognition of a history of violent encounters at the border. However, the highway-specific Information Sharing and Analysis 

Center (ISAAC) created under a grant by TSA to the ‘‘First Observer’’ awareness 

program in 2008 has recently issued an alert of all motor carriers along the southern border. That alert focuses attention on the heightened threat of vehicle hijacking and kidnapping. It was distributed to the entire highway motor carrier community early in March. 

TSA works closely with major bus companies on security improvement. In addition, TSA works with Customs and Border Protection to coordinate security efforts 

in this region. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Okay, thank you. And then, because I think if 

we can do that and see what we need to do to make that happen. 

Because next to Canada, Mexico is our second partner in terms of 

leisure travel, as well as trade. And if we can expedite that and 

make that happen, it would be great. 

And then the second question regarding the bus travel. We have 

thousands of people in there, and my understanding is that we only 

have, you know, in major metropolitan areas, and that is about it 

on bus. 

Ms. ROSSIDES. Correct. What we do have, as part of our ISAC 

program is an ability to monitor the travel on a bus around the 

country. And that is in its infancy. But, we are looking at how do 

we communicate with bus drivers, how do we provide some security 

value and training for them as part of our outreach efforts, and 

working in the consortium of the bus companies. 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
314 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. What I would be interested to know, if we have 

a strategy, how to deal with it and how to, you know. Especially, 

I guess, close to those states on the border, as well as the Canadian 

and the Mexican side, and see how we can help secure that. 

Ms. ROSSIDES. Right. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you for 

being with us. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Ms. Roybal-Allard. 

SECURING UNIFORMS AND BADGES

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I 

would like to express the same concerns that Ms. Lowey just did. 

With regards to the fact that 100 percent of airport employees are 

not being screened, especially in light of the fact that there has 

been a recent report of airport workers smuggling guns and narcotics onto commercial planes. 

So I will be interested in your report, and also if those seven pilots actually reflect what could be done. Because there is about 

300, or more than 300 airports. So I would be interested to see if 

those seven that you did pilots really are a reflection of all the airports. 

Also, if you could include in that report, I would appreciate it if 

the conclusion is that it is not possible, for whatever reason, is 

what contingency plans, then, do you have in place to prevent a 

terrorist from becoming an airport employee in order to sabotage 

or, you know, hijack a plane? 

Because certainly if you can get people smuggling guns and narcotics on planes, it is certainly possible that a terrorist also could 

get onto a plane, as an employee. 

I would like to talk a little bit about the TSA badges and the uniforms. As you know, an investigation by DHS Inspector General of 

missing TSA badges and uniforms concluded that the Agency does 

not have adequate controls to track these items; and that this increases an airport’s level of risk to a wide variety of terrorist and 

criminal acts. 

In September 2008, the Inspector General recommended the TSA 

strengthen its policies and guidance related to securing a uniform 

and badges. Could you tell the Subcommittee what steps have been 

taken to implement the IG’s recommendation? 

Ms. ROSSIDES. Yes, ma’am. With respect to the uniforms and 

badges, we have provided training to our employees. We also have 

an accountability for the new badges that is required of every Federal Security Director to account for all of the badges. Any report 

of a missing or lost badge is investigated by our Office of Inspection. 

We have had a very small number of badges lost since we have 

issued the new uniform in September, with the metal badge. The 

employees are required to conduct the training as part of their initial orientation, and annually, on the importance of safeguarding 

the badges, in particular. 

SECURITY OF AIRPORT WORKERS

If I may, if I could go back for one moment to your comment 

about what assurances or confidences do we have with respect to 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
315 

airport workers and people getting on aircraft, or putting prohibited things on an aircraft. 

TSA, in 2006, began a program where we have our TSOs randomly go through the secured area of the airport, and do things, 

including gate-screening and patrolling the perimeter. We also require all airport workers to be vetted. 

So there are a number of things that we have in place today that 

are fairly aggressive measures that provide for random screening 

inside the secured area, getting to the exact concern that you are 

describing as an insider threat. 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. But still, there are some vulnerabilities 

there that could have been cited. So again, I would be interested 

in your report. 

Also, TSA conducts covert tests of airport security, in which undercover inspectors attempt to pass through passenger checkpoints 

with weapons and other prohibited items. 

And according to an August 2008 GAO report, TSA failed to systematically record the reasons for the airport failing the tests. And 

GAO has said that without this information, that you are very limited in your ability to correct inadequate security in airports. 

How are you addressing this limitation? And are you implementing, again, GAO’s recommendation to fully document a covert 

test failure? 

Ms. ROSSIDES. Yes, ma’am. Since that GAO report, we do actually document the reasons. But, prior to that, even when the covert 

test teams went out to the airports, they did a number of things 

to advise the TSOs in the immediate aftermath of the testing, and 

the Federal Security Director, as to what they observed that they 

believed contributed to the failures, as well as what they observed 

that contributed to the passing of the testing. 

And then after every trip that the covert team makes, they come 

back and brief everybody, from the Administrator through the executive staff, of not only what the test results were, but their observations. And, they have always issued recommendations for tightening up procedures, such as focusing on better training of supervisors to be vigilant as to the officer’s performance on the checkpoint, on any number of measures. 

So we have implemented the GAO recommendation. But, prior to 

that, we had a tremendous amount of dialogue on what were the 

things that the covert teams observed every time they went out 

and did these tests. 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

LARGE AIRCRAFT SECURITY PROGRAM

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. We are aware that the time is getting 

rather late. I would like to have a very efficient final round of questions. And I will begin, because I think it is important to focus on 

the general aviation matter that I mentioned in my opening statement. 

Ms. Rossides, as you know, on October 30 of last year TSA announced a notice of proposed rulemaking that would strengthen the 

security of general aviation by further minimizing the vulnerability 

of aircraft being used as weapons or to transport dangerous people 

or materials. This so-called Large Aircraft Security Program ReguVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:01 Jul 21, 2009 Jkt 050121 PO 00000 Frm 00315 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\50121P2.XXX 50121P2

CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
316 

lation would require all U.S. operators of aircraft exceeding 12,500 

pounds maximum takeoff weight to implement security programs 

that would be subject to compliance audits by TSA. The proposed 

regulation would also require operators to verify that passengers 

are not on the no-fly and/or selectee portions of the federal government consolidated terrorist watch list. 

Airports, pilots, small businesses, and the general aviation community have expressed serious concerns, to put it mildly, over some 

of these proposed regulations, saying they are overly intrusive, 

would pose significant financial and resource impacts on general 

aviation airports across the country, and so forth. 

And so this rulemaking does appear to be one of the more controversial issues from the waning days of the last Administration. 

TSA has been asked by numerous entities to delay its implementation until the new leadership at DHS can review it. 

I know you are in the process now of weighing costs and benefits, 

that you are continuing to work with the affected stakeholders. So 

I want to ask you just a couple of things. 

What is the current timeline and status of this rulemaking, first 

of all? And secondly, to what extent is it being rethought? Are you 

considering alternative security measures for general aviation aircraft? 

Ms. ROSSIDES. Yes, Mr. Chairman. First of all, let me say that 

the rulemaking when it went out, it specifically addressed security 

vulnerabilities that we felt needed to be raised and addressed. 

Those vulnerabilities included things like who the pilot is, who is 

actually commandeering that aircraft, who are the other people on 

board that aircraft, and what is actually being transported on 

board that aircraft. 

The initial interest was to address what we were concerned 

about in terms of security vulnerability. 

It was also very much a risk-based decision to address it at the 

12,500-pound-size aircraft, which really covers about 4 percent to 

5 percent of the general aviation community. We received over 

6,000 comments to that proposed rulemaking. We extended the 

comment period by 60 days from the initial deadline. We conducted 

public hearings around the country. Now, we have over 6,000 comments that we are looking at. 

What we have decided to do is actually bring in representatives 

from the general aviation community. We have a meeting scheduled for April 6. We are going to have the members come in and 

help us look at what are the interests from the security standpoint, 

what are their concerns, and come up with the best options. 

Once we have had that meeting, we intend to go out with a second proposed rulemaking period of time for comments from the 

community and from the general public. 

Obviously, no final rule will be made until, no final decisions will 

be made, without bringing in the DHS leadership. 

Mr. PRICE. Well, that second round is an unusual process for you. 

Ms. ROSSIDES. Yes, it is. Yes. We have only done it one other 

time, and that was when we were implementing Secure Flight. 

We believe that this, plus the in-person engagement, and the 

April 6 meeting should help address concerns and get some common understandings out there. 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
317 

Mr. PRICE. Well, I think it is well-advised, and I appreciate your 

undertaking this additional layer of review. We know there are security vulnerabilities here, we know this needs to be dealt with. 

But I do believe, under the circumstances, this is warranted. And 

we will look forward to reviewing with you the results of this process. 

Mr. Rogers. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, nothing further, except to echo the Chairman’s remarks about general aviation. I have heard a lot from 

them. I am sure, obviously, you have. 

But in the rural parts of the country, in which I live, general 

aviation is the way to get around. And a lot of these pilots, charter 

and/or personal, cannot understand that you do not know that they 

know every person that gets on that plane, and they know every 

nut, bolt, and screw in that plane, and they know everything that 

somebody brings on that plane. So they are quite upset. 

Thank you for your service. You have been a long-time worker 

in that venue, the TSA, from its very inception, in fact. And worked 

most recently with Kip Hawley, who did, I think, a masterful job 

of bringing TSA around, along with all of your-all help. Give our 

regards to him if you talk to him. 

Ms. ROSSIDES. I will. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you. 

Ms. ROSSIDES. Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. We do appreciate your service and your 

testimony here today. I look forward to working together going forward. 

With that, the Subcommittee is adjourned. 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
318 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 409 here 50121A.223
319 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 410 here 50121A.224
320 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 411 here 50121A.225
321 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 412 here 50121A.226
322 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 413 here 50121A.227
323 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 414 here 50121A.228
324 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 415 here 50121A.229
325 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 416 here 50121A.230
326 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 417 here 50121A.231
327 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 418 here 50121A.232
328 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 419 here 50121A.233
329 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 420 here 50121A.234
330 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 421 here 50121A.235
331 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 422 here 50121A.236
332 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 423 here 50121A.237
333 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 424 here 50121A.238
334 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 425 here 50121A.239
335 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 426 here 50121A.240
336 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 015 here 50121A.241
337 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 428 here 50121A.242
338 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 429 here 50121A.243
339 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 430 here 50121A.244
340 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 431 here 50121A.245
341 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 432 here 50121A.246
342 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 433 here 50121A.247
343 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 434 here 50121A.248
344 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 435 here 50121A.249
345 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 436 here 50121A.250
346 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 437 here 50121A.251
347 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 438 here 50121A.252
348 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 439 here 50121A.253
349 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 440 here 50121A.254
350 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 441 here 50121A.255
351 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 442 here 50121A.256
352 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 443 here 50121A.257
353 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 444 here 50121A.258
354 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 445 here 50121A.259
355 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 446 to 600 here 50121A.260

CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
(357) 

THURSDAY, MARCH 19, 2009. 

BIOMETRIC IDENTIFICATION 

WITNESSES 

KATHLEEN KRANINGER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF POLICY, 

DHS SCREENING COORDINATION OFFICE 

BOB MOCNY, DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES VISITOR AND IMMIGRANT 

STATUS INDICATOR TECHNOLOGY 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN PRICE

Mr. PRICE. The Subcommittee will come to order. Good morning. 

We are going to be discussing this morning biometrics identity 

management more broadly, continuing our hearings on policy questions and topics of great interest as we look toward writing the Department of Homeland Security’s budget. 

One of the advantages of this transition period that we are in— 

there are some disadvantages in terms of not having precise numbers and not having a detailed request of the sort we usually have 

at this point in the cycle, but one of the advantages is that we can 

step back a bit and consider some of these broader issues which 

very definitely have budget implications. So we welcome you this 

morning for your part in that series. 

Recognizing and authenticating a person’s identity is part of 

daily life in business and in government. Recording a person’s 

physical features to authenticate their identity has been done for 

millennia, beginning with the use of fingerprints, so we are told, 

in ancient Assyria. 

This recording has evolved in modern times to the high-technology of biometrics, automating the collection, management, and 

authentication of data about personal physical characteristics and 

storing that information in databases that can be used to identify 

people. 

Supporters of these practices see them as a solution to identify 

security challenges. Critics view them as a threat to individual privacy. 

Our governments use identity databases in several ways. US– 

VISIT relies on IDENT, one of the largest identity databases in the 

world, to track foreign individuals as they deal with our immigration services. We have watch lists that identify people for special 

screening at airports or that bar people from flying altogether. 

Several databases are outside of DHS, including the Consolidated 

Consular Database System at the State Department and the Interstate Data Sharing Network, which we have required states to establish for their driver’s license files, under the Real ID program. 

Effective use of these databases to confirm or discover personal 

identities is critical in maintaining our national security, but there 

are many signs that we are not where we need to be in this regard. 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
358 

For example, on March 16th, GAO released a report that showed 

fundamental vulnerabilities in the way our government issues 

passports. A single investigator obtained four U.S. passports using 

fraudulent identity documents and was able to travel on those 

identities. 

While weaknesses identified in the report are in the State Department and Postal Service, not DHS, nonetheless, the example is 

broadly relevant, I think. It proves we need to build vigilance into 

our system to catch bogus documents and that watch lists and 

databases must be constantly scrubbed for accuracy. 

Now, inclusion of biometrics can be part of the solution, but just 

bolting it onto our current system and our current practices will no 

more solve this problem than reroofing a house will solve a termite 

problem. 

Since the 9/11 attacks, the federal government has intensified 

the use of biometrics in databases to identify terrorists or other individuals of concern. We have also used this practice to confirm the 

rights and privileges of those who pose no security risk or who may 

be entitled to special credentials. 

The Department of Homeland Security has a principal role in collecting and managing biometric and biographic information on millions of foreign nationals, residents, and citizens in programs used 

for border and travel security, counterterrorism, immigration control, law enforcement, and infrastructure protection. 

DHS incorporates biometrics in a variety of identification documents, particularly for immigration. DHS has at least nine other 

systems or databases that collect and maintain biometric and biographic records and links to at least five others in other departments. 

Identification data, for example, is collected for Trusted Traveler 

and Safe Shipper programs. It is collected to credential transportation workers and for critical infrastructure protection. 

Now, such broadened use of biometrics may seem justified in the 

post-9/11 world, but that begs the question we expect to discuss 

here today. We are not trying to give absolute answers here because that is not where we are or where we need to be. We need 

to use this technology well and responsibly and effectively. 

How is the Department using biometric technology today? We 

need to know, and how can we best use it to secure the homeland 

while protecting individual privacy rights? We must do both things. 

Under this theme, how is DHS working with other agencies to 

develop standards for biometric and contextual data and to coordinate the collection and management and sharing and control of 

such records? 

Why are there so many different databases? What is DHS doing 

to ensure that the use of biometric technology improves security in 

law enforcement or program effectiveness with a minimum duplication of effort? 

And, finally, how does DHS protect personal information in its 

custody and keep this powerful tool from being abused? 

The most prominent DHS biometric program is US–VISIT, which 

collects and verifies fingerprint and facial images for almost all 

non-U.S. travelers entering this country and, in theory, will someday do the same for their departure. 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
359 

US–VISIT has evolved into a provider of identity management 

services for other agencies, for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, for the Coast Guard, for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, as well as other U.S. Government agencies. In that 

role, it is working to link its records with those of the Departments 

of Justice and State and is developing information-sharing agreements with the Department of Defense. 

We expect to hear today how US–VISIT is undertaking its mission as custodian for one of the world’s largest databases of biometric information. We also expect to hear about plans for the air traveler exit tracking pilots mandated in the Fiscal Year 2009 appropriations bill, as well as any plans for a comprehensive exit strategy. 

Clearly, widespread use of biometric technologies to confirm or 

discover people’s identities is here to stay. It is critical, then, that 

we understand the full range of policy implications, management 

challenges, and funding issues that such programs entail. 

We welcome today, for the first time before this Subcommittee, 

Kathleen Kraninger, the deputy assistant secretary for screening, 

and we welcome back Mr. Robert Mocny, the director of US–VISIT. 

We have, as I understand, a combined written statement from 

the two of you, which we will enter in the hearing record, and then 

we will ask, as we usually do, for each of you to begin with fiveminute oral statements, and then we will turn to questions. 

Before we do that, let me turn to my colleague, our distinguished 

Ranking Member, for his comments. 

[The information follows:] 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
360 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 607 here 50121B.001
361 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 608 here 50121B.002
362 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 609 here 50121B.003
363 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 610 here 50121B.004
364 

OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, ma’am and 

sir. 

From IDENT to WHTI to TWIC, REAL ID to US–VISIT, a seemingly endless list of acronyms and abbreviations that represent 

DHS’s efforts to verify identity and provide real integrity for the 

screening and credentialing of both travelers to and from the country and key personnel. At the heart of this acronym soup is the biometric data that allows DHS to distinguish between the legitimate 

and those who wish to inflict harm. 

In recognition of the multitude of programs with similar reliance 

upon biometric data for their enrollment and vetting processes, 

DHS did what any good government agency does: It created yet another new acronym to coordinate and harmonize these activities, 

known as the—I think I am pronouncing it right—the SCO. Is that 

right: SCI or SCO? 

Ms. KRANINGER. SCO. 

Mr. ROGERS. SCO—pardon me—SCO, the Screening Coordination Office. This office has made some real progress in unifying 

these programs across the Department through what is known as 

the Credentialing Framework Initiative, an effort that, for the first 

time, comprehensively inventoried all of the DHS’s screening and 

credentialing programs in terms of capabilities, technology relationships, and investment needs, thereby identifying opportunities for 

improved efficiency and economies of scale. 

But these programs, and perhaps, more importantly, our terrorist, selectee, and no-fly watch lists are only as good as the data 

they contain. DHS’s efforts to unify the vetting process for its 

credentialing programs will serve little benefit if the data they are 

checking against is lacking in its breadth or authenticity. 

To this point, GAO recently identified gaps in the Department of 

Defense’s processes for the collection and sharing of biometric data 

of known and suspected terrorists with DHS. In a separate investigation, GAO found it relatively easy to obtain genuine U.S. passports, the so-called ‘‘gold standard of identification,’’ using fraudulent identification. 

These two reports, combined with the fact that we continue to 

lack an effective exit solution for US–VISIT, tell me there are some 

serious gaps in our identity security efforts across the government, 

gaps in the quality of the known and suspected terrorist data we 

are checking against, gaps in our immigration controls, gaps in 

identity verification. These are gaps we simply cannot tolerate in 

the post-9/11 era. 

So, with the help of our witnesses, Mr. Chairman, I hope to learn 

more about how we are addressing these gaps, like you. While I 

certainly appreciate how far DHS has come in coordinating its 

identity security efforts, all of that work will be for naught if we 

are not applying rigor to the foundations of these programs and 

managing them with real accountability, sentiments which echo 

the findings of the 9/11 Commission, as well as the priorities of this 

Subcommittee. 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
365 

So welcome to the room. Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the 

time. 

[The information follows:] 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
366 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 615 here 50121B.005
367 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 616 here 50121B.006
368 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 617 here 50121B.007
369 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Ms. Kraninger, please begin. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN KRANINGER

Ms. KRANINGER. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Rogers, and 

other distinguished Members, I am pleased to appear before you 

today with my colleague, Bob Mocny, to discuss the use of biometrics and identity management programs across DHS that enhance our nation’s security. 

In its short history, the Department of Homeland Security has 

truly been at the forefront in implementing large-scale, high-visibility programs utilizing biometrics technology. It is clear that biometrics and identity management programs provide a key capability, furthering our mission to keep bad people and dangerous 

goods out of the United States and to protect critical infrastructure. 

Our mission is critical, tangible, and highly complex. It requires 

a split-second decision by a CBP officer at the port of entry or a 

U.S. CIS adjudicator reviewing a naturalization case or a Coast 

Guard officer on the high seas. 

To support those decisions, we need to provide the right information to the right person at the right time, and, Mr. Rogers, as you 

said, that is, obviously, a very difficult thing to do, and it is relying 

on the underlying information that we have available to us. But we 

have to ensure that that right decision can be made in that limited 

period of time, and we have to be right every time. 

Bob will provide some key examples of some of the success stories, but we recognize that much work has to be done. 

As the Department continues to mature, we are focusing on not 

just those individual mission environments but how they fit together, how the investments we make in one component can support another, how the business processes we use in one component 

compare to the ones used in another in a similar process, and we 

are beginning to realize the capabilities and vision with the creation of the Department. 

Let me take a moment to speak specifically about what the 

Screening Coordination Office is doing in this area. Over the past 

two years, the SCO has led a DHS-wide effort to establish a framework for our people-screening programs. We have looked at how we 

can enhance our screening processes to achieve better security, efficiency, and facilitation, and we have found that the screening programs face the same challenges and essentially follow the same 

process. 

Every process involves enrollment or collection of certain personal information, whether it is fingerprints or a photograph, name 

and date of birth, extensive biographic information, or all of the 

above, depending on the program, yet how is each program collecting that information? How did they determine what information 

was appropriate to collect? 

After enrollment, the agency must conduct vetting, or validating 

that information, and ensuring eligibility and accuracy. Is the terrorist watch list checked? Is immigration status checked? Is a 

criminal history records check conducted? Which systems facilitate 

these checks, and how do adjudicators receive results back and 

make appropriate determinations? 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
370 

Enrollment and vetting are just two of the key parts of the 

screening business process, but they account for a significant portion of the investment. 

That takes me to the most critical part of our framework effort. 

Working with the screening programs, the Department’s CIO, CFO, 

chief procurement officer, and privacy officer, we are rationalizing 

and prioritizing these investments in the screening technologies 

and systems to provide a consistent, security-risk-based framework 

across DHS programs to improve our processes, eliminate redundant activities, utilize existing information in a more effective manner, and improve the experience for the travelers and the public 

who seek DHS services. 

While this exercise is certainly about good management, it also 

supports our ability to accomplish our mission. Establishing standards and ensuring interoperability enables us to better share information across programs, as appropriate. It creates a common language so that the different layers of security, key interdependencies, and inherent vulnerabilities are better understood across 

the Department. This all facilitates a stronger integration of effort 

to improve how we achieve our mission. 

I focused primarily on internal DHS integration, though, as the 

Committee appropriately recognized, this is an effort across the 

interagency, as well as across the globe. We have a longstanding 

relationship with the Departments of State and Justice in furthering biometric technology standards and interoperability to enable information sharing. 

We have established a strong cooperative effort with the Department of Defense and the intelligence community, and both of those 

efforts continue to mature. DHS is working closely with allies and 

interested nations to shut down terrorist travel routes through 

these same principles: establishing standards and interoperability 

and sharing information, as appropriate. 

We realize the responsibility we have to protect this country and 

the opportunities for meeting that mission through a coordinated 

effort. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify and for your continued support of these efforts. 

I would be happy to take any questions that you have at an appropriate time. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you very much. Mr. Mocny. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF BOB MOCNY

Mr. MOCNY. Chairman Price, Ranking Member Rogers, and distinguished Members of this Committee, I am pleased to appear before you today with Kathy Kraninger of DHS’s Screening Coordination Office to discuss the critical role that biometric identity management plays in today’s homeland security efforts. 

In the five years since DHS embarked on the world’s first largescale, biometric identification program, our biometric services have 

revolutionized the way decision-makers across the government 

verify identity and determine whether someone poses a threat to 

the United States. 

When we began, the U.S. was relying on travel documents that 

could be easily forged to verify international travelers’ identities. 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
371 

ICE inconsistently knew when local police arrested an immigration 

violator, and the U.S. Immigration and Border Management System had disparate information systems that lacked coordination. 

The use of biometrics has changed all of this. Today, we verify 

international travelers identities with biometrics, which makes 

fraud almost impossible. Thanks to biometrics, DHS and the State 

Department have stopped thousands of criminals and immigration 

violators from traveling to or entering the United States. Information about criminals and immigration violators is more seamlessly 

shared between ICE and law enforcement authorities as we make 

the DOJ and DHS biometric systems interoperable. 

And DHS is moving from disparate systems toward a single 

source for biometrics-based information about criminals, immigration violators, and known or suspected terrorists. Our IDENT biometric system helps almost every single agency whose mission affects homeland security, from CBP officers at ports of entry to the 

U.S. Coast Guard on the high seas of the Caribbean to local law 

enforcement agencies booking criminals. 

To give you some sense of the scale of these services, government 

agencies relied on biometrics to help accurately identify people and 

assess their risk 48 million times in Fiscal Year 2008 that is more 

than 130,000 identification transactions every day. These encounters were people applying for visas, arriving at ports of entry, applying for immigration benefits, people caught trying to illegally 

sneak into the U.S., and people arrested by local law enforcement. 

DHSs Biometric Support Center also helps law enforcement and 

the military identify criminals and terror suspects through the 

analysis of latent fingerprints left behind at crime scenes or on the 

battlefield. 

Biometrics are also helping where other forms of identification 

cannot. Last year, a man arrived at New York’s JFK Airport and 

presented a valid passport and a valid visa. When his fingerprints 

were checked through US–VISIT, they revealed that he was trying 

to use the visa belonging to his twin brother, who had no history 

of criminal or immigration violations. 

By matching his biometrics, CBP officers learned that this man 

had been apprehended for taking photos of a U.S. military base 

and had overstayed the terms of admission on a previous visit to 

the U.S. He was refused admission. 

Although the use of biometric identification and analysis services 

has grown rapidly across DHS and other agencies in the last few 

years, we still have much to do to stay ahead of the increasing sophistication of terrorists and criminals. The work ahead requires 

collaboration across the government and with the international 

community. 

Internally at DHS, US–VISIT is working to strategically align its 

biometric services with the needs of the agencies it supports 

through an Executive Stakeholder Board. This board will significantly improve planning and coordination for future biometric initiatives. 

In addition to continuing to collaborate internally, DHS is working on three areas that will enhance our biometric services. 

Number one: As I mentioned earlier, DHS is working to make 

our biometric system interoperable with that of the FBI. The imVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:01 Jul 21, 2009 Jkt 050121 PO 00000 Frm 00371 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\50121P2.XXX 50121P2

CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
372 

proved interoperability of our system is already helping ICE identify and remove criminal aliens arrested by state and local law enforcement through the Secure Communities program. 

Number two: We continue to stay on the leading edge of biometric technology to ensure that the solutions we develop are more advanced than the threats we face. We are closely working with 

DHS’s Science and Technology Directorate to research multimodal 

biometric technologies like iris scans and facial recognition, that 

will help us more accurately identify people, increase efficiency, 

and make the technology easier to use. 

Number three: We are working with other countries who are 

adopting similar biometrics programs to share lessons learned and 

develop compatible systems. As countries develop compatible systems, we can share biometric information about criminals and 

known or suspected terrorists, dramatically improving our ability 

to prevent those people from moving across our borders undetected. 

For example, United Kingdom immigration officials recently requested that the United States check one of its asylum applicant’s 

fingerprints against DHS’s data. The result revealed that the man 

had previously traveled to the U.S. using a different name, confirming for U.K. officials that the asylum applicant was lying about 

his identity. Upon further investigation, the U.K. learned that the 

man was wanted on rape charges in Australia, and he was returned. 

A case like this illustrates that sharing biometric information 

with our allies holds great promise for making all of our countries 

safer. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to update you on 

how biometrics are improving DHS’s identity management efforts. 

Your Committee’s leadership in funding this work has helped the 

United States lead the way in biometrics screening. I look forward 

to working with this Committee as we continue to improve the biometric identification services our frontline decision-makers rely on 

to identify and deter human threats. Thank you very much. 

[The information follows:] 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
373 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 628 here 50121B.008
374 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 629 here 50121B.009
375 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 630 here 50121B.010
376 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 631 here 50121B.011
377 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 632 here 50121B.012
378 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 633 here 50121B.013
379 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 634 here 50121B.014
380 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 635 here 50121B.015
381 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 636 here 50121B.016
382 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 637 here 50121B.017
383 

PASSPORTS ISSUED TO GAO INVESTIGATORS

Mr. PRICE. Thanks to the both of you. Now, we will proceed with 

questions. 

I want to ask you to reflect on a case that has been very prominent in the news lately. Even though it is outside your immediate 

area of responsibility, I am sure you have not only heard about it 

but thought about it, and I think it would be a good way to get us 

started today, to understand some of the potential, and maybe 

some of the limits, of biometric technology. 

As you know, the State Department recently issued four U.S. 

passports to GAO investigators, and they were based on Social Security numbers issued to a fictitious five-year-old child, a dead 

man, and bogus identity documents, including forged drivers’ licenses and birth certificates. All applications had pictures of the 

same individual. 

Could biometrics have solved this, or to what extent could biometrics have solved this, or is it a case of underlying processes 

being so flawed that it is not simply a question of more sophisticated and more fool-proof technology? 

Ms. KRANINGER. Biometrics are certainly an important aspect of 

being able to establish and verify an identity, but they certainly 

are not the end-all/be-all. 

At the beginning of the process, you are looking at how to issue 

a passport or any document. As I said, we have really taken that 

business process apart and looked at what information should be 

collected and how should it be checked, and there is certainly a lot 

of system improvements that have happened in recent years but 

many more that still need to happen. 

We have been working very closely, for example, with the Social 

Security Administration. They do provide a capability to actually 

check Social Security numbers for appropriate agency use. The 

State Department has been using that system. We use that system 

in different cases, but the next part of the process here is looking 

at birth and death records. Certainly, that would be an appropriate 

way to verify that an individual is no longer alive and, therefore, 

is not applying for a passport. 

That system actually is underway as well, and will likely, with 

the desire to get to electronic health records, get a little boost as 

well in that area. This is something that we are very interested in, 

and the State Department is very interested in, because the opportunity to check with the vital records agencies across this country, 

of which there are many, and their ability to collect that information and verify is varied, but some [vital records agencies] are fairly sophisticated. And so the opportunity to check those records is, 

again, another useful step in the process. 

The third point is just to look at the biometrics question you 

asked. In part, it becomes, when is the identity actually established, and then against what are you verifying? Certainly, the theory, as we have moved forward with US–VISIT, is, yes, it is very 

possible that someone who is not who they say they are is coming 

before us and presenting a false identification, but they will not get 

to do it again. 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
384 

It is not ideal, but it is what we have done with the system. By 

collecting fingerprints, we are then freezing, so to speak, that identity in our system. For example, the twin brother case is a perfect 

example of how that action and that threat can be countered. 

The State Department is looking to use facial recognition technology more broadly. It help to do a similar check as fingerprints, 

although the facial recognition technology is not as far along as we 

would like it to be. We are encouraging the State Department to 

continue to use that. As they noted in their response to the report, 

they do use it for visa applications, and are looking to do that for 

passport issuance as well. 

So it is not one single solution to this problem, but it is something that we are looking at, the underlying documents that we are 

relying on for identity presentation, how we verify those, and certainly what information we collect, whether it is biographic or biometric. 

Mr. PRICE. The inclusion of biometric data, whether it is a standardized facial image or fingerprints or whatever; the use of that in 

the successive documents that we are relying on obviously would 

tighten up the process of personal identification when you are 

doing something like issuing a passport. 

Ms. KRANINGER. Yes. 

DATABASES MANAGED BY DHS

Mr. PRICE. It does not answer the question, how feasible, or how 

desirable, for that matter, that that is, but there is no question 

that biometrics, at whatever stage, add a degree of precision that 

we have not heretofore had. 

Well, let me just move into the databases that you are working 

with at DHS. 

When the Department was put together, you inherited databases 

containing personally identifiable information and biometrics. It 

has taken time, of course, to bring these together into a cohesive 

unit, and duplications, new efficiencies, you are still working on. 

We need a clear picture of databases managed by DHS, the biometric data they use and the relationship of those databases to 

non-DHS databases, and I do not expect you to do all of that here 

orally this morning. But I wonder if you could just give us an overall picture. 

When DHS was set up, how many databases containing biometric and biographical and contextual data did it control? How many 

are there today? How many records are in these databases? Are 

there still overlaps that you are looking to eliminate, or is there 

perhaps some justification for keeping some of these databases discreet and not fully integrated? 

Ms. KRANINGER. Well, at the beginning of the Department, of 

course, we had 22 agencies, so there were dozens of databases, 

again, associated with different programs that may have had personally identifiable information in them. We do have documentation on that, but, as you noted, going through that would be rather 

extensive. 

Primarily, where we are going is setting up service providers 

within the Department so that we do not have stovepipe systems 

being set up for each new screening program as we go along the 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
385 

way. The best example of that really is IDENT, that Mr. Mocny 

and US–VISIT actually manage and run for the Department. 

Biometrics is, obviously, highly complex, highly technical. It is to 

our benefit, from a management standpoint and also from a security standpoint, to put our expertise in one place with respect to 

biometric storage, capture, and management of that information, 

and so that is what we have done. We have designated IDENT as 

the service provider. 

We are on migration paths for the agencies that are not currently using IDENT because many of them are, certainly in the immigration context. Of those that are not, the biggest is TSA. That 

is something that we are working with them to migrate to. For example, the TWIC fingerprints. We are also looking at aviation 

worker process and how that works and making sure that we again 

create that center of excellence. 

Probably the other big systems to note are the other modernization efforts that you are very familiar with. TECS is the back end, 

really, of CBP’s operations but is also a major database for law enforcement across the board and contains all of the biographic derogatory information associated with agriculture violations and customs violations. There is ATF and DEA information in TECS. That 

information is all used for cross-border purposes. CIS uses that information appropriate to their decisions. And so, looking at that 

modernization effort to really improve our ability to get the right 

derogatory information to that end user, so they can actually appropriately make a decision, is why the TECS modernization is so 

important to us. 

The other thing is really transforming the way TSA works. There 

is a modernization effort, actually, in Fiscal Year 2010, that increases their ability to bring their programs together that were 

very much created in different fee-funded structures with different 

systems. 

US–VISIT IDENTITY MANAGEMENT SERVICES

Mr. PRICE. Perhaps you could supply, in graphic form, the answer to the broad question I asked about the number of databases 

you inherited, the degree of consolidation that has taken place, the 

number of records they contain, just so we have in one place an indication of exactly how far this consolidation has proceeded. 

I want to move on to other questioners, but I do want to pick up, 

Mr. Mocny, and we will come back to this, I want to pick up on 

what Ms. Kraninger just said about the service function of US– 

VISIT. As we hear about that, it almost seems that this is becoming the core US–VISIT mission because you have so many other 

agencies and other programs now dependent on you. Of course, 

your basic entry/exit program; we want to look at the status of that 

as well. 

But you are providing identity management services for CBP, for 

ICE, for CIS, for the Coast Guard, for FEMA, for TSA. Correct? 

Mr. MOCNY. Yes. 

Mr. PRICE. You are collecting biometric information on immigration violators and criminals because all of these agencies are collecting information, as well as utilizing it. So is this becoming your 

core mission, or, at least, a core mission? 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
386 

Mr. MOCNY. It is. We are kind of transitioning away from what 

we were initially stood up as a project office, to deploying the 

equipment out there to begin collecting the information. But as we 

have done that. Our database is now at 98 million and we are almost at 100 million records of individuals who have come into the 

United States. We service about 30,000 users every single day, 24/ 

7. 

As you mentioned, most of DHS, those components that you mentioned, but also the Department of State. In some respects, that is 

a good news story because they use our system. They did not have 

to build a separate biometric system to satisfy the visa in-person 

biometric requirements; they use the IDENT system as well. So the 

State Department writes to the IDENT database all of the biometrics that they capture worldwide. 

So it is providing a service that people do rely on. We have protocols in place to make sure that the system is as up as it possibly 

can be. It has to be ready and available for the decision-makers, 

as Ms. Kraninger talked about, but it is a service that is relied 

upon now for the current operations across DHS, State Department, and is also, as I said earlier in my opening statement, now 

helping state and local law enforcement. 

So when a police officer in Houston, Harris County, or Boston, 

Dallas and in several other counties that are beginning to deploy 

Secure Communities, arrest a subject, in the past, that person 

would be run against the FBI’s IAFIS system and stopped right 

there. Now, in these communities, more and more, they also run 

against the IDENT system, and these people will lie to the police 

officers that they are a U.S. citizen or a legal permanent resident. 

But now we are able to tell that police officer that this person is 

in fact, an illegal alien has been deported so many times. ICE can 

then put a detainer on that individual and then remove that person 

from the U.S. 

So, from the federal to the state and local across the board we 

are assisting with biometric identification services. 

SECURE COMMUNITIES

Mr. PRICE. And the local agencies that would access these 

records would do it through participation in Secure Communities 

or some such program. 

Mr. MOCNY. That is correct. 

Mr. PRICE. It is not generally the case across the country. 

Mr. MOCNY. Through the Secure Communities program. 

Mr. PRICE. Through a special designation as part of that program. 

Mr. Rogers. 

US–VISIT IMMIGRATION CONTROL OR INVENTORY

Mr. ROGERS. Well, to follow up on the Chairman’s line of questioning on US–VISIT, of course, at the outset it was conceived that 

US–VISIT would be an agency that would pick up a chore that INS 

had failed for all of its years, and that was to find a way to learn 

who was in the country and who had overstayed their allotment of 

time, an inventory, if you will, of people here illegally. But since 

we cannot seem to get an exit piece of US–VISIT working, it is not 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
387 

an inventory anymore of those here illegally, obviously, and it is 

really essentially a terrorist-screening system, not an immigrationcontrol system. Right or wrong? 

Mr. MOCNY. It is an immigration-control system. We do rely on 

biographic information in a big way. We have a unit dedicated to 

looking at the information that we glean from another system 

called ADIS, which is tied to IDENT—ADIS, the Arrival/Departure 

Information System—and every 180 days we get an exception 

record of those individuals who are potentially in the country, having overstayed their visa. 

We have a unit that looks at that and culls that information, 

looking at priority countries and individuals and gives that information to ICE. 

In Fiscal Year 2008, we sent thousands of records to ICE, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. They made approximately 750 

arrests based on that information. That is a functionality we did 

not have before. 

I will grant you, we do not have exit in place. We are working 

diligently on that. A biometric exit will be in place soon, but the 

biographic side of the house is being looked at. We are able to work 

with ICE and are able to take people out of the country to, who 

have overstayed their visas. 

EXIT SOLUTION

Mr. ROGERS. Have we given up on an exit solution? 

Mr. MOCNY. Absolutely not, sir. Let me speak to that issue because we have been talking about that, and I was here two years 

ago talking about that as well. We have made tremendous 

progress. 

It is challenging. I will grant you that. We do not have exit in 

the U.S. When you leave from France or Australia or Japan, you 

go through an exit-control process. They have had that up for 

years. 

We do not have that here in the U.S., and so where we did have 

an entry process which we modified through the US–VISIT program, we have yet to stand up the exit program. We have run some 

pilots, where we know the technology works. We are going to conduct the two pilots that were in the Fiscal Year 2009 DHS Appropriations Act. 

We have the places identified where we are going to run those 

pilots: one in Detroit and one in Chicago. We will run that pilot for 

35 days. We are going to analyze the information from that, and 

we are going to make recommendations, obviously, to the Secretary 

and to the Administration, to have a roll-out plan for how we implement biometric exit at the air and seaports of entry. 

So I realize we are not where we need to be, or perhaps where 

we should be. But we are very close, and I am committed, and we 

are all committed, to getting it up and running. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, it has been a while. We spent $2.1 billion on 

US–VISIT, and a big part of the chore that we assigned to US– 

VISIT was exit, and, without the exit capability, it severely cripples 

what we have conceived to be the mission of US–VISIT in the first 

place. 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
388 

You know, are we just to continue pouring money in this bucket 

with all the holes in it, or can you give us some hope, just a thread 

of hope, that, one of these days, we will have an exit part of US– 

VISIT? 

Mr. MOCNY. I can. I can tell you that we have all of the pieces 

in place. 

Certainly, from a legal standpoint, we put a proposed rule out 

there. We looked at six different scenarios and we costed those out. 

We went through a very rigorous process. We are now going to conduct the two pilots that were mandated in the 2009 appropriations 

law. We can then conduct a final rule and have an exit system up 

and running within the year or so. 

Obviously, it is a policy decision for the new Administration to 

look at. I have not had the opportunity to speak directly to this 

issue with the Secretary. I see my colleague over here nodding her 

head. She is aware of this issue within the Secretary’s office. 

So I can give you a thread of hope, absolutely. We are certainly 

poised to move forward, and I do not want you to think that the 

$2.1 billion is not money well spent. The Chairman has provided 

this money over the years and we have gotten value for our dollars. 

We have stopped thousands of individuals from entering this country. We have identified people at the Mona Past, where I know you 

have seen it personally, sir, and been able to stop people who were 

coming into this country. 

So the money has been well spent. It is not complete yet, but we 

are moving in that direction. 

DOD BIOMETRICS

Mr. ROGERS. Let me switch gears real quickly here, then. DoD 

has got to be one of the most important sources of information. 

Right? 

Mr. MOCNY. Absolutely. 

Mr. ROGERS. GAO, in their October 2008 findings, says that DoD 

immediately shares biometric data related to terrorism that it collects on non-U.S. personnel. When asked, they share that information. But according to GAO, updates on certain types of DoD biometrics are not being regularly received by DHS, and, when received, are inconsistent in format and usefulness. 

For example, if data collected in Afghanistan on a particular individual is only a two-print format, it is often impossible to go back 

and obtain the other eight prints in order for the information to be 

logged into our ten-print system. 

Tell us about the DoD sharing, whether it is adequate, spotty, or 

complete. 

Mr. MOCNY. Let me start, and I think that Kathy will want to 

say something as well. Let me start by saying, this is a work in 

progress. Yes, we are five years old, but, in many ways, the coordination of the biometrics is still something that we are working on. 

That being said, we have made tremendous progress on this 

issue. We receive DoD prints on a daily basis through the FBI, so 

we have a direct connect from IDENT to Clarksburg, West Virginia, to the IAFIS system. Every day, the FBI will also collect information from ADIS, the DoD system, and will route that information to us in the form that we call ‘‘known suspected terrorists,’’ or 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
389 

KSTs. We get that information daily from the FBI to update our 

records. 

Do we have every single print taken by every single warfighter 

on the battlefield? Again, a work in progress, and it is something 

that we need to look at, from a governance standpoint, to make 

sure that the collection processes are standardized, that we, in fact, 

do get that information. But I will say this daily, we get this information, as I said before. That which the FBI cannot send to us, we 

can get in another direct feed from ADIS via a CD, oftentimes, but 

we have already identified individuals who the DoD was holding. 

We have latent print examiners in our office. They were able to 

identify an individual by a fingerprint on the back of a piece of 

electrical tape that was used for an IED that was linked to an individual that DoD was holding. They were able to increase the security, based on that information. 

So it is working. Does it need to improve? Absolutely, and that 

is something that Kathy is working very strongly on. Do you want 

to add to that? 

Ms. KRANINGER. Yes. DoD, just on their side, has, obviously, had 

a lot of progress to make, in terms of their collection and standardization, and, certainly, without speaking for them, they have made 

a lot of progress on that end, so the data that was collected earlier 

in both theaters is being cleaned up, and, from a point forward, 

they have been very good about standardizing and making sure 

that the collection is what the screening community would need. 

So that has been one-half of the effort. The other half of the effort, as Bob noted, is that there is certain information that the FBI 

actually cannot take, or will not take, for legal reasons. Admissibility is a much broader category, and we have access to, and authority to look at the other information that DoD has. So we have 

been working very closely with them to ensure that we can get the 

right populations from them and be able to use that for screening, 

but it is a work in progress. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, finally, the compatibility of the data that you 

get from DoD and your system; are you fully compatible with DoD? 

Mr. MOCNY. We are. We are. 

Mr. ROGERS. No problem with format. 

Mr. MOCNY. They collect through FBI standards. There is a 

standard collection process. If they collect only two fingerprints, 

our system can accept that. The FBI can accept that as the latent 

print, but we can accept two, one; it does not really matter. But the 

format is very compatible. As I said, we get them daily, we run 

them daily, and we get hits on a regular basis. 

Mr. ROGERS. And they are fully cooperative? 

Mr. MOCNY. Absolutely. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. Ms. Roybal-Allard. 

EXIT SYSTEM

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to 

do a little bit of a follow-up on the exit system because you said 

you have been moving forward, and you are ready to implement it, 

yet there was a GAO report in 2008 that stated that ‘‘DHS still 

lacks the crucial capability,’’ and the report states that ‘‘the DeVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:01 Jul 21, 2009 Jkt 050121 PO 00000 Frm 00389 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\50121P2.XXX 50121P2

CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
390 

partment’s poor planning risks repeating failed and costly past exit 

efforts,’’ and it went on to recommend that DHS conduct an analysis of costs, benefits, and risks for proposed exit solutions before 

committing even more money to the development of such a system. 

My question is, have you gone through that process, in terms of 

the planning, before you started to move forward on what you are 

doing now? 

Mr. MOCNY. Yes. As part of the proposed rule that we published 

last year, we did do a cost-benefit analysis of six different scenarios. We looked at ways the government might do it, ways the 

airlines might do it, various ways that the government might do it. 

And so, looking at those various scenarios, and costing those scenarios out, we went with part of the proposed rule. 

So that does, I believe, satisfy the GAO’s recommendation that 

we do an analysis first before we actually move forward. Having 

done that, and in addition to the two pilots that we are going to 

be running this year—that is why I am saying, from a technical 

perspective and from a legal perspective—we are poised to move 

forward on the exit system. 

TWO-PRINT AND TEN-PRINT DATA COLLECTION

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Okay. Then also, with regard to the fact 

that you are now capturing all 10 fingerprints, my question is, 

what is going to happen to all of the data collection, over the years, 

of the two prints? Is that still usable, or does it get destroyed? 

Mr. MOCNY. It is an amazing challenge, but yes, it is usable. We 

do have to ten-print those individuals who we have two-printed in 

the past, so if we have not seen that person for a while, they would 

go through the new ten-print process, but the two prints are used 

today. There are many individuals who only come infrequently to 

the U.S., so we would use that information. 

We have almost completed the ten-print deployment, we have a 

few places they go. So, in fact, some ports of entry are still using 

the two-print before the ten-prints get out there. The system accepts that. People can use that. It is just a more accurate way of 

doing it, and when we get to full deployment, by the end of this 

year, then everybody will go through a ten-print process when they 

come in for the first time and then, oftentimes, they will only need 

a slap of one hand in subsequent visits to the U.S. So it is a more 

efficient system and a more accurate system. 

BIOMETRIC STORAGE SYSTEM

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Okay. Finally, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service is required to submit the fingerprints of applicants for immigration benefits to the FBI for criminal history 

checks, and, unfortunately, as often happens, an immigrant’s case 

is not adjudicated within the 15-month window, and his or her fingerprints must be taken again. 

This practice, according to the CIS ombudsman, is very costly for 

the agency and also very inconvenient for the applicants. 

To address the problem, DHS, I understand, is rolling out the Biometric Storage System, which is a repository of biometric information which enables the Department to save and re-send images of 

applicant fingerprints. 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
391 

My question is, if you could just give us an update on how this 

is working and if you have encountered any problems with it. 

Ms. KRANINGER. That particular program and that particular 

system were actually stopped, but the issue that you raise is one 

that is very much on the forefront of our attention. 

Certainly, we want to make sure that we are improving USCIS 

processing time so that they are able to efficiently operate and that 

this is not an issue. So that is certainly the goal of the modernization of USCIS’s transformation process, and we are looking at the 

ways to improve that. 

The second half of this, though, is also an FBI policy issue with 

respect to the recapture of fingerprints and then resubmission. So 

we have had conversations with them to see what can be done 

about that policy over time. There are really two halves to this. 

One is certainly getting our better processes in place and transformation and then also working with the FBI closely to make sure 

we can make this a little easier. 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Carter. 

PILOT PROJECTS

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You mentioned that you have two pilot projects that you are 

working on right now on exit. 

Mr. MOCNY. Correct. 

Mr. CARTER. How many pilot projects have you already worked 

on on exit and decided that they did not work? 

Mr. MOCNY. Starting in 2004, actually, through 2006, where we 

looked at a couple of different ways of capturing biometrics, using 

a mobile device and using kiosks as well, and then a combination 

of kiosks and what we call a ‘‘verifier,’’ but it was a mobile device 

as well. We ran those for about two years or so. 

What we found is the technology worked quite well. We could 

take the fingerprint in the middle of the airport, transmit that fingerprint, and even get a response back, should we desire that. 

The issue was the process. Working with the airports, as you 

well know, going through airports today, it is a mall now, so they 

want to save the retail space for the profit angle of it. So we put 

it in areas that were not easy to find. So people, where they could 

find it, did use it. It worked, but it was difficult for the traveler 

to find it. 

So what we concluded from that was that the exit process is 

going to have to be part of the traveler’s continuum, either at the 

check-in counter, at TSA, or at the gate itself, and it is the TSA 

pilot and the CBP, Customs Border Protection at the gate; those 

are the two pilots that we are going to run in the May–June timeframe. 

BORDER CROSSING BY CAR AND ON FOOT

Mr. CARTER. I was at the border in Laredo about 18 months, 2 

years ago. I stood there on the bridge and watched them bring people across. My memory sort of fails me, I guess, but, as I recall, 

they had people who were frequent crossers of the border, and they 

had had the fingerprints and all of that stuff done. 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
392 

Some of them, they would stop in a car, see their card, and I do 

not know whether they had a print thing that took their fingerprint as they went across, or what the situation was, but they 

moved pretty rapidly across the bridge, much more rapidly than I 

would pass through at the airport. 

Mr. MOCNY. Uh-huh. 

Mr. CARTER. Then I stood and watched the walking people that 

were supposedly frequent visitors that made more than a few crossings. They had a fingerprint pad, electronic, and a card. 

Now, I do not recall, and maybe you can answer this, whether 

those people walked through a magnetometer, whether they had 

their bags that they were carrying inspected or run through an xray unit, but I do not think they did. Can you tell me whether or 

not they do? 

Mr. MOCNY. What I believe you are referring to, in the first instance, is the SENTRI program, which is across many ports of 

entry on the southern border. These people are prescreened, so 

they go for an actual interview with a CBP officer. They have their 

fingerprints taken, they go through a vetting process, and they get 

a card that is then used in special lanes in Laredo, El Paso, Otay 

Mesa, San Jacinto, and a couple of other places. 

That is a very effective program for frequent travelers because, 

again, they are prevetted, and the Customs officer has a better 

sense of who that person is. What happens is it uses radio frequency technology, much like the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative is going to be using. So it prepopulates the screen. The officer knows who is in the car—they have been vetted, they are 

green, they are good to go—and lets them through. That makes for 

a quicker inspection. 

On the second scenario, what I believe you are referring to is 

probably just a regular US–VISIT person coming through the process, where they go through a fingerprinting process as part of the 

policy where, again, anybody coming under a visa or coming using 

a border-crossing card for more than 30 days or more than 25 

miles. 

So that is the standard US–VISIT process, and, frankly, while 

they may not go through a magnetometer in every instance, they 

are certainly screened by a Customs and Border Protection officer. 

They can have their bags looked at, at any given point, if the officer believes that to be the case. So there is a rigorous screening 

program on the southern border for anyone going into the United 

States. 

Mr. CARTER. I asked the guy that was with me. I said, ‘‘Where 

do you think this person is going?’’ and they said, ‘‘Well, probably 

just right across the border here to do shopping and so forth.’’ 

I said, ‘‘How do you know?’’ He said, ‘‘We do not know.’’ 

I said, ‘‘How do you know when he comes back?’’ ‘‘We do not 

know when he comes back.’’ 

‘‘Could he go all the way to Canada?’’ ‘‘Yeah, he could go all the 

way to Canada. It would not be a problem.’’ 

And what really struck me was, I went through the mess at the 

Houston Airport, although that is not my port of getting on the airplane normally—I get on the airplane in Austin—but I had the iris 

scan, I had the fingerprints done, and all that stuff. 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
393 

It is supposed to speed along the process, but it does not. You 

still get your bags searched. You still have to stand in line to go 

through the magnetometer and all that stuff, and yet people are 

crossing the southern border in a wave almost. I mean, I find that 

curious. Do you have any comments? 

Ms. KRANINGER. The distinction, just in terms of domestic 

screening processes by TSA and border entry, are real. One certainly is just the statutory responsibility we have to screen every 

individual and every bag that is actually going to get on a commercial aircraft. So that is the distinction that we would make. Not to 

say, though, that CBP cannot. CBP actually does do physical 

screening where they feel it is necessary. They are trained law enforcement who are conducting an inspection. They do generally ask 

someone where they are going. But we appreciate the point, that 

is absolutely the case that once someone enters, we can only rely 

on what they told us. 

But there is a separate regime when it comes to domestic and 

international air travel, when someone is leaving the country 

from—— 

Mr. CARTER. I understand that. It just seemed like one was very 

particular, and one was very lax. In other words, you could have 

been carrying a suitcase full of plastic explosives across the border, 

and nobody was doing anything about it, it looked like to me, because I sat there for about an hour and watched them go by, and 

nobody’s bag got looked at while I was there, and some of them 

were carrying lots of big things across the border. I just sort of 

found it curious, as we look at national security, that that is the 

way it would operate. I think you need an exit policy. Thank you. 

Mr. ROGERS. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. CARTER. Yes, I yield. 

BORDER CROSSING BAGGAGE CHECK

Mr. ROGERS. Well, the fact that 90 percent of the cocaine entering this country comes through Mexico, obviously, across the border; some of those bags are containing substances that we do not 

want here, the bags you are talking about that go unchecked. 

Mr. CARTER. It could be. 

Mr. ROGERS. Right or wrong? 

Mr. MOCNY. That is always possible. I do know that CBP every 

day encounters individuals, and they will confiscate cocaine, marijuana, and others. Border Patrol does the same thing in between 

the ports of entry. 

It is a problem, no doubt. Is it universally appropriate to every 

single case? Obviously not. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, with the drugs coming into the U.S. and the 

guns going out of the U.S. to Mexico, it is an open sieve, open. 

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Farr. 

VISA WAIVER PROGRAM

Mr. FARR. I find these discussions fascinating because I think I 

have just felt, ever since 9/11, that having to go through this harassment at the airport is so un-American and so contrary to our 

right to freedom of travel, that it seems to me that once all of that 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
394 

screening was put up, it was our government saying, ‘‘We do not 

trust you, as an individual.’’ 

I have hoped that maybe this all moves to some technology that 

we do not have to have the human interaction, but it is interesting 

that TSA now, their whole point is about human interaction. It is 

the interview, when they look at your eyes and look at you, that 

they really get back to this being able to determine by interviewing 

people whether there is something suspicious, more so than all of 

the equipment that is out there. 

I had a couple of questions. How many countries now are in the 

visa waiver program? 

Mr. MOCNY. Twenty-seven. 

Mr. FARR. And how many of those 27 countries require for Americans coming into their countries, they have to do the same thing 

that we are requiring here? 

Mr. MOCNY. Some of those, Japan and the U.K.—— 

Mr. FARR. Two out of 27? 

Mr. MOCNY. Pardon? 

Mr. FARR. Two out of 27? 

Mr. MOCNY. Two right now, but the European Union is moving 

to a biometric visa issuance process, too, so all of the European 

Union countries—many of whom are in the Visa Waiver Program— 

in fact, the bulk of them are from Europe—will be implementing 

a biometric screening program for anybody required to have a visa 

to go to the EU. 

EXIT STRATEGY

Mr. FARR. And will they have an exit strategy as well? 

Mr. MOCNY. They are working on one. Japan already has one, 

and the EU has some, in various stages, in various countries, but 

the concept is to move to a biometric entry and exit process. 

Mr. FARR. It is very hard to drive and walk in Japan. It is an 

island. They have this program that the other Members were talking about and bifurcated. We have this border where most of the 

people coming into the United States do come by land, from Canada and Mexico, far greater than all of the air travel. 

Is there a plan to do an exit strategy for all of the people leaving 

California going into Mexico? 

Mr. MOCNY. As part of the comprehensive exit process, yes. It is 

a concept that we have put forward. We have not gotten it fully developed yet, but we do have a report that talks about how you 

would implement a land-border exit for pedestrians, for vehicles, 

for trains and buses. So there is a process in place to actually implement that. 

Mr. FARR. You would have traffic lines backed up to Los Angeles. 

Mr. MOCNY. It is certainly not an easy challenge, but there are 

many locations where people walk across the border, and so you 

can capture their information, and there are many ports of entry 

which are one, two, and three-lane ports of entry, which makes it 

easier to capture the information. 

Mr. FARR. There are 27 lanes in San Jacinto. 

Mr. MOCNY. Absolutely. So that is something we are going to 

have to—— 

Mr. FARR. They are all backed up. 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
395 

Mr. MOCNY. There is no easy solution. I will grant you that. 

Mr. FARR. It is a two-and-a-half-hour wait coming into California, on a daily basis, even when you are in a fast track, to get 

through that. So if you had to do that going out, I think you would 

create something that people—when the enforcement is worse than 

the problem, you create a nightmare. 

I am just interested. Why do we need an exit strategy? 

Mr. MOCNY. We need an exit strategy; because number one, the 

Congress has mandated that in several statutes. 

Mr. FARR. But why do we need it? Not just Congress mandates—— 

Mr. MOCNY. I understand. We need to know who is in our country and who has left the country. We need to be able to rationalize 

the 12 million people who are here in the country illegally, as estimated, how they got here, many of whom came under the visa 

waiver program and never left; many of whom came with a visa 

and never left. 

Mr. FARR. When you discover that they are CEOs of high-tech 

firms and leading university professors and perhaps leading citizens in our community, and they came here on a visa, went to the 

university, got a degree, and stayed, what are we going to do about 

it? 

Mr. MOCNY. Again, we need to know who is in the country and 

who has left. Once we know who has not left, then we can have 

our Immigration and Customs Enforcement take the appropriate 

action. Again, there is not a universal panacea, but it is a way of 

building integrity into the immigration system. 

People have come to the U.S., exploited our immigration laws, 

and, therefore, we have to build some integrity into the process to 

make sure that we have some control over our immigration. 

Mr. FARR. For 200 years, we never did this, and we know we 

have 11 million people. We do not even know how many people are 

staying. I do not see why we need an exit strategy. There are just 

so many loopholes in it and exceptions to it that it seems to me a 

waste of money. This is a job you have been doing since its inception, right? 

Mr. MOCNY. That is right. 

Mr. FARR. How long does it take to work yourself out of a job? 

No further questions. 

Mr. PRICE. All right, Mr. Calvert. 

INTERACTION WITH E-VERIFY PROGRAM

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I will take a 

different tack on this, Mr. Chairman. 

I understand why we need an exit policy. I was at Disneyland 

a few years ago in Florida, and I entered there, and you put a finger in, and, you know, I was wondering what the heck that technology was at the time—this was five years ago. And when I left, 

I put my finger in, and later on I talked to an executive at Disney 

Corporation, and he said, that is right, we know who you are when 

you come in, and we know when you left. And I do not know how 

many people go to Disney World every day, but it is significant 

amount of people. 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
396 

In Japan, as you know, their exit strategy is primarily eye scan. 

It takes approximately one second as you walk through the turnstile, the Japanese can know who came in and who left. It is a very 

efficient system, and the systems are getting better every day. 

And in respect to Mr. Farr’s line of questioning, you know, the 

United States has changed over the last 200 years. We now get 90 

percent of the methamphetamine that come into the United States 

comes across the border. We have a significant crime problem along 

the border, both people leaving the United States, as Chairman 

Rogers mentioned, and smuggling weapons into Mexico, and the 

other way around, smuggling these illicit drugs into the United 

States, and right now we have hundreds of thousands of people 

that, unfortunately, are out of work in the United States because 

of the economic situation in this country, and some of those people 

who are here illegally are taking jobs away from people who would 

love to have those jobs. 

So I believe that we need to have a system that works, and I congratulate you on the progress you have made, though we would like 

to see more progress. And in that I was the original author of the 

program that is now being implemented as a volunteer program 

called ‘‘e-verify’’, and I wonder what your interaction with that program is, if any. 

Mr. MOCNY. We do not have any within US–VISIT. There is no 

biometric involved with either other than a photograph. 

Mr. CALVERT. I see, so the so-called photo tool that is now attached to that system? 

Mr. MOCNY. Correct. 

BIOMETRIC IDENTIFIER ATTACHED TO SOCIAL SECURITY CARD

Mr. CALVERT. Do you think it would be useful at some point in 

the future as this technology continues that a biometric identifier 

be attached to Social Security cards? 

Mr. MOCNY. You are asking my opinion? I think, as stated earlier, you know, biometrics does add integrity to any identification 

process, and at the same time it is not a silver bullet. So you have 

to weigh the costs and benefits of it, and the ability for the various 

companies to utilize this information. But as you well pointed out, 

if Disneyland can do it, if we can do it worldwide, if the Brits can 

do it, it is probably something that is doable. It is, of course, a policy question as to how we implement that with respect to Social Security cards. 

NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS PROCESSED EACH YEAR

Mr. CALVERT. How many individuals does US–VISIT process 

each year, approximately? 

Mr. MOCNY. Each year? 

Mr. CALVERT. Each year. 

Mr. MOCNY. In the range of about 25 million, I think, a year. 

Mr. CALVERT. Twenty-five million people. So the problem right 

now you are identifying the 25 million that are coming up, but we 

do not really know how many are leaving. That is an accurate 

statement? 

Mr. MOCNY. From a biometric side, you are right. Again, we 

work with the biographic side so that we do capture enough inforVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:01 Jul 21, 2009 Jkt 050121 PO 00000 Frm 00396 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\50121P2.XXX 50121P2

CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
397 

mation to give us a pretty good sense of who has not left the country. Again, we get that acceptance report every day, but the biometric would add significantly to the certainty of that. 

NEXT EXIT PILOT PROGRAM

Mr. CALVERT. You mentioned these pilot programs and some discussions about that. Now, where is the next pilot program going to 

take place? 

Mr. MOCNY. For the exit? 

Mr. CALVERT. Yes. 

Mr. MOCNY. We are going to have one in Chicago and one in Detroit. 

Mr. CALVERT. One in Chicago and one in Detroit. Around the 

Windsor Bridge area, that type of? 

Mr. MOCNY. No. This is for air exit so it is going to be at O’Hare 

for Chicago and the Detroit Airport for—— 

Mr. CALVERT. What port of entry into the United States receives 

the highest traffic? 

Mr. MOCNY. Which port of entry receives the highest traffic? 

Probably San Diego and/or El Paso. 

Mr. CALVERT. Depending on you—— 

Mr. MOCNY. Yes, right. 

EYE SCAN TECHNOLOGY

Mr. CALVERT. Is there other technologies other than, and I know 

there is a 10-fingerprint scanner, which is quicker to use, is the eye 

scan the quickest to use or is the—what technology out there or 

what technology do you perceive in the future that may be utilized 

to move this process quicker? 

Mr. MOCNY. We are actually looking at iris scans and facial recognition as well. Iris scans really is a promising biometric for us 

because it is hands off. It is highly accurate, and it is very quick, 

and you can do it on the move. You do not have to touch anything. 

The only issue with that obviously is we want to keep the fingerprint as the base biometric because that verifies criminality. So 

once we have established, and we are looking at a process which 

would include all 10 fingerprints, the face, and then the two irises 

and then process that as appropriate. 

In some cases, it is better to use the iris given the scenario we 

have, possibly using that for exit control even at the airports because people do line up and walk through queues and tunnels 

where they can be easily captured. So we are looking at multimodal, not only from a facilitation standpoint, but from a security 

standpoint because, again, they are going to try to thwart the fingerprint process. So we have to kind of mix it up; use what we call 

multi-modal—face, fingerprint, iris, and the next biometric—to 

make sure we are verifying their identities. 

Mr. CALVERT. A final point, Mr. Chairman. I have always said 

to my friends since I live near the border as many of us do, that 

we can either be proactive about solutions to this problem as we 

are doing, or something is going to occur along the border, not with 

Mexican nationals, I do not think that is the problem, but with 

someone else that enters the United States, and then we will react, 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
398 

and the government, when it reacts, tends to overreact, and then 

we will have a more difficult problem that we have to deal with. 

So with that, I commend you on the job you are doing, and look 

forward to more progress. Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Culberson. 

POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON RFID ENABLED DOCUMENTS

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is really timely 

and important, and really appreciate what you are doing. I think 

that about two years ago the FBI director went to the office in San 

Antonio and congratulated them on their work in breaking up a 

smuggling ring that had actually snuck Hamas terrorists into the 

United States, and I think we have also documented that there has 

been Hezbollah terrorists have come in, and speculation—no absolute confirmation about al-Qaeda, but there is no question they are 

using the southern border, the ports of entry, the northern border 

to sneak into the United States, and that we as a country have absolutely got to use this technology, and good law enforcement techniques, just good old-fashioned boots on the ground that is working 

so well in the Del Rio and the Laredo sectors in securing those sectors using a very successful and very popular program called Operation Streamline, a zero tolerance policy. 

But I wanted to ask in particular about the—zero in on the subject of the hearing today, that since we have already got—Congress 

has given hundreds of millions of dollars to DHS to build the physical and IT structure to read the travel documents under the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, and we have got travelers who 

have—a million travelers who have paid for the RFID-equipped 

cards in 13 ports of entries that have gone through the trouble and 

expense of installing the equipment to read them. 

Could you talk about what could be the impact on the Department and the traveling public if there were any major changes to 

the program at this stage? 

Ms. KRANINGER. Well, the biggest change will be coming, actually, June first of this year with the actual compliance date for having a secure document when you are entering the United States for 

U.S. and Canadian citizens, who this primarily affects. We are actually very excited about this because we really see it as a huge 

facilitation gain. As was noted before, the Sentri Program has done 

a lot, and the NEXUS program on the northern border, to really 

move through individuals who are already identified to present to 

the CBP officer the information about that person on the screen, 

including a photograph. So there is a biometric component to this, 

including the photograph. They can have done quick checks done 

against wants and warrants, and the terrorist watch list, just as 

the car is pulling up, and actually know who is going to be in that 

vehicle and process them quickly and efficiently. 

So we do expect and actually have seen gains in exactly that 

way, and the more individuals who have RFID-enabled documents 

the better it is going to get. 

Mr. CULBERSON. So on June 1, how many ports of entry do you 

expect to have that in place? 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
399 

Ms. KRANINGER. We have the top 39 ports of entry targeted to 

actually outfit the RFID readers in every lane in-bound and that 

will be completed before that point. 

Mr. CULBERSON. So by June 1 you are going to have 39 ports of 

entry up and running—— 

Ms. KRANINGER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CULBERSON [continuing]. With read the RFIDs. Terrific. I 

know U.S. Visit was originally seeking competition for the U.S. 

entry program and getting the biometric equipment because you 

did not want to be held hostage to one supplier. Can you talk to 

us about your future plans for seeking additional sources for the 

biometric equipment and for other similar programs? 

Mr. MOCNY. Absolutely. There is a limited number of companies 

out there that have this type of equipment. Before biometrics, it 

was about fingerprints and it was law enforcement-related. And 

you have basically four companies in the world, two of which are 

foreign, and so what we need to do is work with industry, which 

we have on a regular basis. We provided you some pictures up 

there, and the fingerprint device that we demonstrated to you, that 

did not exist three years ago. We had industry in our building, and 

told them that the flat fingerprint devices were too slow, too nonuser friendly, and too large actually to put on a CBD officer’s desk. 

And so we gave them a challenge to come up with something not 

bigger than 6′′ × 6′′ × 6 ′′—and in about eight months we had the 

first phototype, and shortly thereafter, we had a couple more. 

So working with industry, we need to encourage them in this 

field, not only the capture devices, but in the biometric processing 

in and of itself. 

We talked about iris scans a little while ago. That was a very 

nascent program just a few years ago where the UAE has been 

using it very robustly for awhile now. It still had its issues as far 

as patent controls and all. That patent has now expired, and we 

are seeing more and more companies moving in that direction. 

So I am very encouraged with what we are seeing from an industry standpoint. I think more needs to be done. I think, as more and 

more countries move to a biometrically-controlled border management system, as we talked about, we need to encourage that competition because we cannot rely on one or two companies, again, 

who have foreign ties to be managing our biometrics on a day-today basis. 

PASS CARD FOR THE MEXICAN BORDER

Mr. CULBERSON. Now forgive me if this has already been asked 

earlier, but I also wanted to ask about them, again with the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, is DHS planning to use a card 

form for the PASS card for the Mexican border crossing card? And 

if so, what happens to the fingerprints that are on the current 

card? Is DHS planning to ignore the statutory requirements that 

the fingerprints be on the card? 

Ms. KRANINGER. Well, with respect to the border crossing card, 

actually the State Department has issued 125,000 of the new cards 

already. They are RFID-enabled, and again provide the same benefits that I discussed with respect to secure documents, which is a 

major gain. 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
400 

The collection of fingerprints is still very much a part of the border crossing card issuance process. We do actually use and currently check through US–VISIT IDENT to see if there are any law 

enforcement-related hits against those fingerprints, and again, the 

results of that are shown to the CBD officer when they process 

somebody who is entering with a border crossing card. So fingerprints are still very much part of the process. 

From a security standpoint, we have not wanted to put the fingerprints actually on the card itself, and I am not sure—that has 

changed. Yes, that has changed. So the border crossing card does 

not actually have them on the card itself. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Right. 

Ms. KRANINGER. But they are associated in the file, and I do not 

want to speak for the State Department. 

Mr. CULBERSON. A RFID tag will trigger it? 

Ms. KRANINGER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

ACCURACY ISSUES

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Let me turn to the question of accuracy 

because, as you well know, these systems can have very dire consequences for individuals if they are caught up in an inaccurate 

match. They can also have dire consequences for security if the 

matches do not show up. There are two kinds of common errors as 

I understand it with biometric ID systems: the false match errors 

where an individual is matched with another’s biometric, and the 

false match errors where an individual whose identity is recorded 

in the system is not matched with their biometric data. I know you 

worked to minimize or to maybe balance those two kinds of errors. 

Ms. Kraninger, I wonder if you could tell us how the Department 

works to minimize such errors? What kind of ongoing efforts do you 

have underway? 

Some of this is a matter of readings changing over time. As faces 

age and as fingerprints get worn away by labor or chemicals or injuries, whatever, so it is partly, I guess, a matter of ensuring that 

the biometric data is up to date. It is also a matter of continuing 

to refine the accuracy of the system. 

Finally, what if an individual does get caught up in this? What 

kind of opportunities does that individual have to understand the 

problem, first of all, to be informed about it, and to take efforts to 

take action to correct their biometric data in the system? 

In an unrelated area, we hear the stories of the watch lists at 

the airport where people simply cannot get themselves off that 

watch list, and they get pulled aside for special screening week 

after week after week, and it is very slow in getting fixed. What 

about this situation? If an individual is caught up in a false match 

or false identification, does that individual have any resource if the 

problem is not quickly fixed? 

Ms. KRANINGER. Mr. Chairman, you went exactly where I did 

when you mentioned the watch list because the truth about the biometric situation, frankly, is that it helps us significantly in the 

area where we have a harder time actually matching the [biographic] information. When all you have about a person is a name, 

and you are matching that against a watch list, the opportunity for 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
401 

more matches is there, and then, of course, you have to actually adjudicate those matches and determine if it is the real person. 

Mr. PRICE. No, I understand. I understand that your system is 

far more accurate and, of course, that is the point of having the biometrics. However, we have background from GAO that you are not 

without error rates of both of the kinds that I mentioned. 

Ms. KRANINGER. Yes. 

Mr. PRICE. And presumably individuals are caught up in that. 

Ms. KRANINGER. Absolutely. So with respect to redress opportunities, we did establish, I guess now two years ago, the DHS TRIP 

process, so that any traveler who is affected by a misidentification, 

or otherwise believes that they were improperly processed, whether 

it was by CBP in the US–VISIT process, or CBP in general, or 

TSA, or USCIS even in an immigrations benefits process, where 

they think they have an issue related to watch list, they can submit that request to the DHS TRIP office. It’s the central office managed by TSA on behalf of the Department. Those requests are then 

adjudicated in a uniform way across the Department so that we 

can make a determination whether the information is related to 

the watch list definitely or in another place, so that we can address 

that individual’s issues and either correct their records or provide 

them some redress. 

There are limitations on the biographic side. That is certainly 

why we are setting up Secure Flight and why we want to collect 

more than just a name, and therefore have required full name, 

date of birth, and gender as part of that process. 

You brought up a very valid point though about biometrics too, 

no system is perfect. So we do have the situation where, as you 

noted, fingerprints that deteriorated or facial images that are not 

to quality. We are certainly doing things on that front as well that 

I would defer really to Bob in detail. 

Mr. MOCNY. Yes, it is something that we take very seriously. We 

want to make sure we do not miss the bad guys but that we do 

not inconvenience the good guys. And so it is a matter, as you indicated, kind of setting up thresholds within the system to do just 

that. We work every single day to make sure that we have an accurate system. The 10-prints will help us get there, but other biometrics will even help us get there with higher accuracy, if we are 

adding iris scans to the process. 

You should know that if there is a false match, we do have fingerprint examiners 24/7 who look at that information. So if a person provides fingerprints to the State Department, consulate overseas or port of entry—and there is ‘‘a hit’’, within a couple of minutes we have a fingerprint examiner looking at the candidate print 

and the one on file, and making a determination of whether or not 

that is a true hit or not, again what we call gray area hits with 

those very, very few who are sent back into secondary to resolve 

that. 

So we take that seriously because we want to make sure that we 

are moving people through the process and not inconveniencing 

them and not falsely identifying them. And to date, we have not 

had such an issue. Again, we have humans who do actually look 

at this on a daily basis, about 50,000 a week actually. 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
402 

Mr. PRICE. Is there any way of tracking improvements in error 

rates of those sorts? 

Mr. MOCNY. Absolutely. 

Mr. PRICE. Do you have information you can provide us? 

Mr. MOCNY. We can. We can give you good detailed information, 

you know, technical fixes that bring that false match right down 

to something that is very, very manageable. But again, people are 

looking at this on a day-to-day basis very, very bright people— 

much brighter than me—who are looking at algorithms and ways 

in which we can do this better and better, so we can actually provide that to you. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Rogers. 

EXIT SYSTEM ADD TO US–VISIT

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you. To follow up on Mr. Farr’s line of questioning about whether or not we need an exit system to the US– 

VISIT Program. If we do not have an exit system, there really is 

no way to know whether or not a person has overstayed his or her 

visa, right or wrong? 

Mr. MOCNY. That is correct. If we do not have an exit, you are 

right. 

Mr. ROGERS. And as a result of that, 40 percent of the 12 million 

illegals in the country now, I am told, 40 percent are here because 

they simply overstayed a legal visa, right? 

Mr. MOCNY. That is correct. 

Mr. ROGERS. Came here legally, overstayed the visa, and you 

have not caught them. So if you assume that the country needs a 

border and citizenship, then you have to say that we have to have 

a system of allowing visitors in for a limited time and then knowing when they leave. Is that right or wrong? 

Mr. MOCNY. That is correct. 

Mr. ROGERS. As a matter of fact, one of the big reasons why we 

have hopefully secure borders and checking people who come and 

go is to be sure that we keep out people that want to do us harm, 

right or wrong? 

Mr. MOCNY. Right. 

Mr. ROGERS. And I would remind you that four of the 9/11 hijackers were visa overstays, and that two of the World Trade Center bombers were visa overstays. So it matters whether or not we 

know a person is here on an overstay or not. But, you know, I 

think one of the big reasons why the efforts at exit control have 

not worked, like the kiosks in airports and the like, is that the 

exitor has no real incentive to let us know he has left; right? 

What if we changed the rules so that if a person who is in the 

country on a visa, when they leave the country if they do not let 

us know that they have left, when they try to come back a second 

time they are not allowed? Would that not be an incentive? 

Mr. MOCNY. That would be, and in fact, that is the case again 

from a biographic side is how we capture information. If someone 

leaves the country and they either have not reported it say at a 

land border, we would have a record of that biographically in the 

system to say that they potentially overstayed the visa. 

The problem is it is difficult to enforce because people may have 

left the country, and we may not have known about it because we 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
403 

do not have an exit system. So from one side of the standpoint, it 

is a facilitative measure to make sure that that person who legitimately left the country and checked out can come back into the 

country and be able to prove I left the country. Right now we think 

people may not have left the country, and that can become an issue 

for the traveler. So by having an exit system, it does help on the 

enforcement side, but it also helps the traveler to confirm the fact 

that they left legitimately, and it lets us know with more definition 

that that person did not leave on time. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, I am just trying to figure out what kind of an 

incentive we can put on the person who is coming and going to let 

us know when they have left the country. But as you say, if there 

is no mechanism by which they can let us know that, then it is not 

a good answer. 

Mr. MOCNY. Well, it is certainly something we are looking at as 

far as, again, when we get to the land border because it is much 

more difficult to do so. So we want to provide a process by which 

someone can tell the officer, I have left the country and I have left 

on time, but we also want to know that that person left and did 

not leave on time, and because there is no way to watch those people leaving the country, there is no way to enforce that fairly and 

legitimately. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, if we could follow Disneyland’s example that 

Mr. Calvert told us about, if here was a way that you can construct 

an exit system that is built on that simple procedure of putting 

your thumb in a box before the let opens to let you out, then we 

will have achieved the magic exit system. 

Mr. MOCNY. And that is a challenge and that is why we need to 

work with industry. Again, I can probably paint you a scenario for 

people who walk across the border, and people who drive through 

one or two lane-ports of entry on the northern border. But to handle the people leaving through San Diego, El Paso, Detroit—some 

of the larger places, and some places where they drive 45 miles an 

hour across the border, to have that person place a thumb-print or 

whatever else and do it safely, that is our challenge. So we need 

to work with industry to either change the paradigm, or have them 

report back when they get to the other side of the border. There 

are different ways for looking at how to handle that, but I do believe we can put something in place. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, I charge you and challenge you again to come 

up with a system that—surely in this modern technological age in 

which we live you can do that, and I have been to that San Ysidro 

border. Is it 12 lanes each way? 

Mr. MOCNY. It is 24 in and four out, four or five out. 

Mr. ROGERS. It is amazing. 

Mr. MOCNY. Yes. 

Mr. ROGERS. And the traffic was backed up two or three miles, 

and they are going through it at 30–40 miles an hour through the 

check-out point, so I understand the complexity and the volume 

and the size of the flow that you are trying to carry. Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. We obviously have votes on the House 

floor, so we will plan to close out with Mr. Farr. 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
404 

GLOBAL ENTRY PROGRAM

Mr. FARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Rogers is right. We need to make sure that the bad people 

who snuck into this country or gotten in, I think that is what law 

enforcement is all about. My concern is that we have set up a separate department just on exit when we have the border customs and 

border patrol to do entry when it seems to me they ought to all be 

combined. 

It also seems to me that there is a priority here. We did grandfather people in who came in here undocumented in the eighties 

who came through the amnesty program for farmworkers and it 

worked very well. What I am concerned about in a global strategy. 

We have also got to be a country that is not looked at and hated 

by the rest of the world because the business community, the traveling community of those countries want—you know, want to come 

here, want to be treated like we would want to be treated in their 

country, and I think we end up, just like this agricultural war that 

we have, we are trying to keep things out if they are threatening, 

and it is just that we have got to be smart about this. That is my 

point. I think there are ways of doing it. 

Let me just ask this one question about the Global Entry Program. Can you provide me a timeframe when DHS will allow the 

international visitor from The Netherlands, Germany, and the U.K. 

to use the Global Entry Program? 

Ms. KRANINGER. Actually, the Dutch pilot will be the first one, 

and we are looking to launch that very soon, in the spring, and the 

others will follow soon thereafter. 

Mr. FARR. Well, does the pilot mean then that all of them from 

The Netherlands can come or is it just a few, or what is it—the 

question is really when is the timeframe when they will be in place 

for all those countries? 

Ms. KRANINGER. The Netherlands are starting first and it is their 

similar program that will actually allow those members of that program to come in through Global Entry. So what we have to do actually is share information on the individuals in Global Entry, the 

individuals in, I think it is called Privium. So that is going to take 

a little bit of time to do quick checks on those individuals, share 

that information, allow them to enter. But the first person can 

enter in the spring when we get that moving. We only say pilot because it is the first of the international phases, so the U.K. and 

Germany will come soon thereafter. We will have to finalize agreements with them, but this should all work very well, and will happen this year. 

Mr. FARR. This year. Okay, thank you. 

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED TRAVEL PROGRAM

Of the International Registered Travel Program, which we have 

for Canada, why do we not have it for Mexico? 

Ms. KRANINGER. We actually do with SENTRI, and so Mexican 

nationals actually can participate in SENTRI. What we are doing 

with CBP as well is saying, NEXUS, SENTRI, Global Entry, when 

they were all established, have very similar requirements for the 

background check that we conduct, the information that is proVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:01 Jul 21, 2009 Jkt 050121 PO 00000 Frm 00404 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\50121P2.XXX 50121P2

CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
405 

vided, and how we process those people. So what we are doing as 

well is letting them begin to use that same benefit through air that 

they use today on land. So we are actually in some respects—— 

Mr. FARR. So it is in place for Mexico as well as Canada? 

Ms. KRANINGER. Yes. Mexico through the SENTRI Program, 

Mexican nationals, and the Canadians have the NEXUS Program. 

Mr. FARR. Okay, thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, and with that we will draw this hearing 

to a conclusion. We do have more questions I feel certain, and we 

will submit them to you for answers then for the record. 

In the meantime, thank you for the good work both of you do, 

and for being here today and helping us prepare for writing next 

year’s bill. 

Mr. MOCNY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. KRANINGER. Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. The Subcommittee is adjourned. 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
406 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 689 here 50121B.018
407 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 690 here 50121B.019
408 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 691 here 50121B.020
409 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 692 here 50121B.021
410 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 693 here 50121B.022
411 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 694 here 50121B.023
412 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 695 here 50121B.024
413 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 696 here 50121B.025
414 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 697 here 50121B.026
415 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 698 here 50121B.027
416 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 699 here 50121B.028
417 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 700 here 50121B.029
418 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 701 here 50121B.030
419 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 702 here 50121B.031
420 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 703 here 50121B.032
421 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 704 here 50121B.033
422 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 705 here 50121B.034
423 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 706 here 50121B.035
424 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 707 here 50121B.036
425 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 708 here 50121B.037
426 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 709 here 50121B.038
427 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 710 here 50121B.039
428 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 711 here 50121B.040
429 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 712 here 50121B.041
430 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 713 here 50121B.042
431 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 714 here 50121B.043
432 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 715 here 50121B.044
433 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 716 here 50121B.045
434 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 717 here 50121B.046
435 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 718 here 50121B.047

CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
(437) 

THURSDAY, MARCH 26, 2009. 

DEVELOPING AND TRANSITIONING HOMELAND 

SECURITY RESEARCH PRODUCTS INTO USE 

WITNESS 

BRADLEY BUSWELL, ACTING UNDERSECRETARY FOR SCIENCE AND 

TECHNOLOGY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. PRICE. The Subcommittee will come to order. Good morning. 

Today we have before our Subcommittee Bradley Buswell, the 

Acting Undersecretary for Science and Technology, Directorate at 

DHS, to discuss how the Agency develops and translates advanced 

research into operational homeland security products. 

Welcome, Mr. Buswell. 

Mr. BUSWELL. Thank you. It is great to be here. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN PRICE

Mr. PRICE. Today one of our main focuses is to obtain greater understanding of how S&T identifies and selects promising technologies for further development, and how you find ways to efficiently leverage existing technologies into new uses. 

Your predecessor as Director took a proactive stance, seeking to 

ensure that the research S&T undertook was relevant to the operational needs of the components with DHS. We would like to hear 

from you how you are continuing these efforts, and how you are 

building upon them. 

S&T is a very young agency, formed when DHS was created in 

2003. In its infancy, we were concerned that it was replicating research done either by other federal government entities or by other 

DHS agencies. 

In 2008, this Subcommittee commissioned a study by the National Academy of Public Administration to look at how S&T’s research portfolio fits into the broader scope of research in the federal government, to assess that portfolio on its own terms, and also 

to assess the fit, the complementarity, between the DHS portfolio 

and what is going on elsewhere in the federal establishment. This 

review we anticipate will be completed in June. 

In the meantime, we are interested in discussing what specific 

steps S&T is taking to ensure that efforts within the innovation 

portfolio in particular are not duplicative or research that either 

precedes it or is going on elsewhere in the government or in DHS; 

how S&T coordinates its work within the department; and how 

other DHS components test and utilize technology S&T develops in 

their own work, so that promising technologies do not sit on the 

shelf. 

Recently some disturbing news surfaced about internal coordination with S&T related to the Biowatch program. We have been told 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
438 

that one component of S&T is field testing a biowatch prototype 

without coordination, while the Test & Evaluation and Standards 

Office, which claims they do not have any access to any of that 

data. 

Now, we will be holding a hearing later this year to discuss the 

specific challenges that the Biowatch program poses. But this, I believe, is a good example of what we need you to be mindful of as 

S&T executes the Fiscal Year 2009 budget that we approved, and 

as we consider the budget going forward. 

At our hearing with S&T last year we talked at length about better ways to include the private sector in the development of new 

technologies, as well as S&T’s role as a technology clearinghouse 

for Homeland Security-related research. 

We continue to have a strong interest in improving S&T’s capacity to evaluate promising technologies and research proposals from 

outside. 

S&T’s upcoming installation of Resilient Electric Grid technology 

in New York City is a great example of how the Agency should be 

leveraging prior investments, both public and private, to accomplish the mission. This technology would help prevent the spread 

of blackouts, such as we saw in 2003, and it could maintain power 

in more areas affected by a disaster by isolating blackouts before 

they spread. 

We would like to hear about your recent accomplishments and 

upcoming plans for this promising technology. 

Finally, just last week, in our hearing on interoperability we discussed the importance of field demonstrations and pilot programs. 

This is surely an integral step in S&T’s technology development 

process. Because a large portion of your budget has been devoted 

to these efforts, it would be helpful if you could discuss some recent 

pilots S&T has been involved in since our hearings last year, and 

your future plans for performing demonstrations with your customers. 

Obviously, pilot programs serve a couple of critical functions. 

They demonstrate the linkage that I mentioned earlier between research and the practical applications, the missions of the agencies. 

They give us a way of making a test run before investing a huge 

amount of dollars in deployment of technologies or programs. 

Before we begin, I would like to point out that while S&T’s university programs are not the main focus of this hearing, we should 

not downplay the crucial role basic research plays in a homeland 

security environment. This type of investment helps us gain a 

greater understanding of the world around us, which in turn affords us greater insight into how we can better provide disaster relief, for example, or more effectively protect our borders with technological advances. 

So Mr. Buswell, we look forward to your testimony. Please summarize your oral statement if you will, in about five minutes, and 

your entire written statement will be placed in the record. 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
439 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 724 here 50121B.048
440 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 725 here 50121B.049
441 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 726 here 50121B.050
442 

Before we begin, I want to turn to the distinguished Ranking 

Member, Mr. Rogers, for his comments. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And welcome to Undersecretary Buswell. 

By just about anyone’s measure, S&T’s effectiveness or its ability 

to field technical solutions to meet our homeland security challenges has been mixed over the last six years. 

On the one hand, S&T has delivered some useful products, including the Dazzler non-lethal weapon, cyber security tools, and 

mobile biometric readers used by the Coast Guard to identify illegal immigrants and smuggling suspects in the waters off Florida 

and Puerto Rico. 

The Directorate has also made strides in organizational layout 

and a reasonable budget framework, including basic research, innovation investments, and transition to the field. 

But on the other hand, S&T has failed to deliver on what appear 

to be some straightforward technological challenges. Most notably, 

my favorite project, the container security device, the CSD. We 

have been talking about this ever since we formed the Department, 

even before. And after almost four years of work, S&T and CBP 

have utterly failed to produce a viable security container device 

that will simply tell us whether or not a container was tampered 

with in transit. It baffles me. 

In the time we have devoted to the container security device, our 

country invented the atomic bomb and sent men into space, 

achievements that should not even be mentioned in the same sentence as the container security device. And yet the device is an 

achievement that is still sadly out of reach. 

I have a long-held view that a workable technology solution exists that can provide some level of assurance for the integrity of inbound cargo containers, especially in high-risk trade lanes. And 

this subcommittee has prioritized such a development, and yet, 

here we are, still waiting. 

There are also several other key homeland security challenges 

where the development of an effective technical solution would 

vastly improve operations. Whether it is a viable exit reader for our 

land ports that we have heard about just last week at our US– 

VISIT hearing, our foliage-penetrating radar that CBP could use to 

better detect unauthorized entries along the borders, there are 

plenty of problems that need solving. 

And that is precisely why S&T exists. I remember a time when 

we were talking about the need in Homeland Security for something similar to DARPA at Defense. And S&T I think really was 

a product of that conversation. And then we decided to create a 

HSARPA, a Homeland Security research group. 

I am of the firm belief that private industry holds the answers 

to technical challenges like we have talked about. So we need to 

continue probing how S&T can best access the talent and innovation that only resides in the commercial sector, in the private sector. 

As many of us can recall, we heard from CIA’s venture capital 

arm last year, known as In-Q-Tel, in our hearing. And they made 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
443 

a very compelling case, I thought, for how to harness the ingenuity 

of the private sector. 

I would like to hear about your progress in doing just that. Because after all, S&T’s success is ultimately determined by the products and solutions it actually delivers. Whether it is first responders communicating in the midst of an ice storm, like we saw a 

month ago in Kentucky, where a S&T project was used to establish 

interoperative communications from an area where all communications had been snuffed out—I forgot the name of the project— 

MITOC, yes, M–I–T–O–C, which is an S&T creation. Incidentally, 

coincidentally, manufactured or put together by the University of 

Louisville and Western Kentucky University as another product of 

the work of this subcommittee. 

Or it could be border patrol agents interdicting smugglers in Arizona. Our front-line operators are counting on the scientists and 

engineers of S&T to evaluate and deliver the tools that enhance 

their work and improve our homeland security. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the time. I look forward to our discussion. 

[The information follows:] 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
444 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 731 here 50121B.051
445 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 732 here 50121B.052
446 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 733 here 50121B.053
447 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Buswell, please proceed. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF BRADLEY BUSWELL

Mr. BUSWELL. Good morning, Chairman Price, Ranking Member 

Rogers, and distinguished members of the committee. I am honored 

to appear before you today for the first time in my acting role as 

Undersecretary for Science and Technology, and I am delighted to 

update you on the progress and accomplishments of the S&T directorate in providing technological capabilities to our customers, the 

operating components of DHS, and also importantly, the nation’s 

first responders. 

First, let me say that I am grateful for the immediate and strong 

leadership and support of Secretary Napolitano. From day one in 

her seat, she has been very supportive of S&T, and has consistently 

emphasized the importance of Science and Technology in accomplishing all of the missions of the Department, as has been mentioned already this morning in your opening statements. I value 

the opportunity to support that, and accept the accompanying responsibility. 

I am also very appreciative of the leadership of this Committee, 

and the support of the Directorate’s endeavors, the informed counsel. There is no substitute for the informed counsel of Committee 

members and staff. And it has been critical to the Department’s 

success in positioning S&T up to this point for accountability and 

tangible results, for today and into the future. 

The Committee is well aware of the Directorate’s efforts over the 

last couple of years to reorganize its structure, its research portfolio, its business operations in order to expedite the delivery of 

technology to our customers. And I am proud to report that these 

efforts are taking hold, and the Directorate is delivering. 

We are successfully maturing our 12 Capstone Integrated Product Teams (IPT) that we use to identify the highest priority technology needs of our DHS operating components. And in the last 

month we have also added a thirteenth IPT that is focused on the 

needs of the state and local first responders, our nation’s heroes 

that are out on the front lines of homeland security every day. We 

are delivering products across the spectrum of, across the spectrum 

of homeland security. 

You mentioned, Mr. Chairman, the Innovation portfolio. We are 

very proud of that portfolio, particularly because it is new. It began 

two years ago, as we started the reorganization of the Directorate, 

and it is providing exciting, innovative solutions to homeland security problems that are higher risk than the operating components 

are willing to take in their acquisition programs. But that is why 

we have S&T. 

We can talk about, you mentioned the Resilient Electric Grid, we 

can talk more about that. We had a recent test. We have a leveestrengthening and damage-mitigation technology that is, that will 

prove, I think, to be a critical component in levee barriers, stopping 

the flooding. And then things such as the Magnetic Visibility 

MAGVIZ, which is the magnetic resonance-based security checkpoint device that will help us screen liquids going on the aircraft, 

or any other, any other checkpoint situation. 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
448 

You mentioned the basic research portfolio. We are executing 

that at laboratories and universities across the nation and around 

the world, to keep that technology pipeline full into the future. 

So I guess in conclusion, I am looking forward to talking more 

specifically about the things that you would like to hear about. But 

I want to say that I am honored to serve with the talented scientists and engineers and other professionals who support them in 

this mission, to field technologies that protect our homeland and 

defend our freedom. And I am looking forward to continued, to continued interaction with this Committee and the support of the 

Committee in accomplishing those missions. 

So thank you again for the opportunity to appear, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The information follows:] 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
449 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 738 here 50121B.054
450 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 739 here 50121B.055
451 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 740 here 50121B.056
452 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 741 here 50121B.057
453 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 742 here 50121B.058
454 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 743 here 50121B.059
455 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 744 here 50121B.060
456 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 745 here 50121B.061
457 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 746 here 50121B.062
458 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 747 here 50121B.063
459 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 748 here 50121B.064
460 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 749 here 50121B.065
461 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 750 here 50121B.066
462 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 751 here 50121B.067
463 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 752 here 50121B.068
464 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 753 here 50121B.069
465 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 754 here 50121B.070
466 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 755 here 50121B.071
467 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 756 here 50121B.072
468 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 757 here 50121B.073
469 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 758 here 50121B.074
470 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 759 here 50121B.075
471 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 760 here 50121B.076
472 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 761 here 50121B.077
473 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 762 here 50121B.078
474 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 763 here 50121B.079
475 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 764 here 50121B.080
476 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 765 here 50121B.081
477 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 766 here 50121B.082
478 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 767 here 50121B.083
479 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 768 here 50121B.084
480 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 769 here 50121B.085
481 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 770 here 50121B.086
482 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 771 here 50121B.087
483 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 772 here 50121B.088
484 

RESILIENT ELECTRIC GRID

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Well, I will begin the questions, and we 

will focus initially on the innovation projects you touched on, and 

one of them in particular. 

S&T’s focus with regard to its research portfolio has been centered on high-risk, high-reward technologies. Because of the highrisk element, and sometimes the high-cost element, it is vital that 

any opportunity to leverage worked by outside entities is taken, 

and that there be good coordination with relevant work in the public and private sector. 

Now, a good example of one of these high-impact projects is the 

Resilient Electric Grid, which you referenced. This technology 

would create a smarter and more efficient electric grid, less susceptible to rolling blackouts by creating a failsafe mechanism within 

the transmission infrastructure. 

A couple of questions about this project, which may illumine the 

way you operate more broadly. 

Please explain briefly what your partnership with Con Edison in 

the pilot of this project entails. What is the timeline for installing 

and testing this technology? When will you know if the pilots prove 

successful? And when could this capability be commercially available? 

Secondly, we have had some news reports recently that expressed fears that some of the automated meters and two-way communications and advance sensors in a smart grid infrastructure 

could be prone to hacking. So I wonder how the resilient electric 

grid project fits into the overall concept of smart grid technology. 

We are putting a lot of investment in this smart grid effort. It 

is a major component of the Recovery Bill that we passed here. I 

have some of this work going on in my own district. In many research centers around the country this work is proceeding, and we 

put great stock in it. 

But how does the resilient grid research work? And particularly 

the focus on the potential disruptions and catastrophes, how does 

that fit with the overall smart grid work and that concept? Does 

your project have any role in developing sensors or communications 

infrastructures that could be susceptible to a cyber attack? And if 

that is the case, then what have you been doing to leverage the 

general cyber security efforts to address the problem? 

Mr. BUSWELL. Well, thank you, sir, that is an excellent question. 

The day before yesterday I was in Oak Ridge National Laboratory at a demonstration of the inherently fault-limiting, fault-current-limiting capabilities of the Resilient Electric Grid. 

Now, a little bit of background on the Resilient Electric Grid. 

This is, as you said, is an HSARPA project working closely with industry, American Superconductor, and also the private sector, Con 

Ed, or the public utility sector, Con Ed. And it is a cost share. I 

mean, you know, cost sharing is essentially a third industry and 

two-thirds DHS. 

So the government is getting this product for two-thirds of the 

price. So I mean, that highlights, as Mr. Rogers indicated, the 

value, one of the values of the public-private partnerships. 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
485 

But this is a sample of the high-temperature superconducting 

cable that was tested Tuesday at Oak Ridge. And this size cable 

can carry the same amount of electricity as six of these bundles. 

So 18 of these copper cables would feed the same amount of electricity as this high-temperature superconductor. 

So you can see in locations, such as Manhattan, where we are 

looking at piloting this, that if you look under the streets in Manhattan, it is spaghetti. I mean, there is no room for 18 more of 

these bundles to feed the electricity, when we can replace it with 

this. 

Now, the value of the superconducting is more than just the compactness and the reliability. If we can connect substations with 

superconducting capability, we can mitigate the exact kinds of 

things that you are talking about in the smart grid, that could happen to the smart grid. 

The cyber security aside, the SCADA aspects of cyber security 

aside, which we are doing a lot of work in also, to make sure that 

the infrastructure is protected from cyber attacks—and I can talk 

about that separately—the value of this is to connect, for example, 

in this pilot two substations. We have a fault in one substation. 

The current is picked up through the superconducting cable between substations, and the loads are uninterrupted. Critically important in critical infrastructure applications, such as the financial 

district, that relies on power to accomplish its missions; airports. 

I mean, I cannot think of, I am sure you can think of more examples than I can of critical infrastructure that could be supported by 

continuous power. 

We are looking at a couple of final laboratory tests over the 

course of this year, and Con Ed is reevaluating where they want 

to install this technology. Their previously planned location, for a 

number of reasons, has, they have shifted their thoughts on that. 

So rather than the upper Manhattan site that they had prepared, 

they were prepared to install it at, they think that that capital improvement is going to be pushed out because of the electricity demand in that area. So they are looking at a lower Manhattan application. And we expect to have that installed in the next 18 months. 

And we will know at that point whether it is successful or not. 

So this is a really exciting one. And this highlights the importance of basic research, as well. This technology began 20 years before there was a Department of Homeland Security, with the Department of Energy investment in superconducting. 

Mr. PRICE. With the basic research taking place at Oak Ridge. 

Mr. BUSWELL. Exactly. And other places. But yes, sir, this was 

Department of Energy basic research on superconducting, for reliability purposes, that we are taking advantage of for homeland security applications, to keep critical infrastructure powered in the 

event of natural or manmade disasters. 

So I think it is, you know, this is a classic example of taking 

some research that is on the shelf, or has been funded by other 

agencies; applying it to homeland security situations; and providing 

increased protection for the critical infrastructure and for the 

American people. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Rogers. 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
486 

ENGAGE THE PRIVATE SECTOR

Mr. ROGERS. Interesting discussion. I think what we are trying 

to get at here at the hearing, among other things, as well as your 

budget, is how can we engage the private sector in the ingenuity 

that resides out there, to match that up with the intellectual firepower in our research universities and research labs and so on? 

And all the while, try to develop an answer to a problem that we 

have to solve. And in the process, spin off some jobs, producing 

these products that are being developed? 

One innovative way that is working is something that you started three or four years ago. We put together in Kentucky a consortium of all universities and colleges, and asked S&T what the laboratories and scientists that they have on board might be able to 

tackle. And out of that came a great host of problems that you 

wanted solved. 

And you matched up the research capabilities on those campuses 

with the problem that you wanted solved. And out of that have 

come these research projects. And from those projects, for example, 

I mentioned briefly the MITOC, the Manned Portable Interoperable 

Tactical Operations Center, which is a mobile unit that was sent 

to Kentucky during the bad ice storm we had a month ago, where 

all of the communications were shut down. The Governor could not 

communicate in or out of any of the towns, practically the whole 

state. 

And the MITOC van, packed with its gear, was sent in, and established interoperable communications between the state and 

local, and between locals and each other, and saved the day. And 

that was a product of one of those research programs; University 

of Louisville and one other university produced that product. 

Now it is being commercialized. And the manufacturer, small 

companies are beginning to hire people to make the product. 

Another, for example, is something as simple, how do we protect 

the raw milk from being contaminated between the milk barn and 

the processing plant? And we learned in China that that could be 

a very deadly problem. 

And the University of Kentucky and Western Kentucky University put together a project, which I happened to look at a while 

back, now being commercialized, which establishes a way, utilizing 

a central communications checkpoint on computer consolidation, to 

keep track of that milk from milk barn to processing plant. And it 

is a pretty good link to the fix. That was an S&T project through 

this university research program. 

I think it is an innovative way, and there are many others. But 

the main idea, of course, is to employ the intellectual firepower 

that we have on the campuses with the brainpower out there in the 

private sector, and harness that energy towards the goals that you 

want. Much like we did in World War II, where we came from nowhere, with nothing; and within four years, was the world’s superpower, and defeated two major axes around the world. 

I think we are really being slow these days. We are not doing 

that now as we could and should. And that is why we have you. 

Did you hear the In-Q-Tel hearing last year? 

Mr. BUSWELL. I did. I was here. 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
487 

Mr. ROGERS. Is that a workable model? In-Q-Tel has been able 

to, as an arm of the intelligence community, I think pretty well 

interact with the private sector and the college sector, research sector. And the private sector, to develop jobs. Is that a good model? 

Mr. BUSWELL. It seems to work for the intelligence community. 

We are not sure. And so what we have done is TSA has initiated 

a contract with In-Q-Tel to test whether or not this actually works 

for the Department of Homeland Security. So TSA has committed 

some funding, I believe it is about $5 million, to In-Q-Tel; has highlighted some areas that they would like In-Q-Tel to investigate for 

them. And we will see whether or not we get results. 

I am hopeful. But let me talk a little bit about the model that 

we have in place. And you are absolutely right. The metric of success is deployment of technology into use. I mean, that is the end, 

that is the end state. 

The earlier we can get the private sector involved in that process, 

the better, because we do not manufacture things. The private sector manufactures things. 

And so when public-private partnerships are a win-win-win for 

DHS, the private sector, and the taxpayer. You get faster speed of 

execution with the private sector, I believe. Obviously you create 

jobs and revenue through the production of valuable products that 

can then be sold in the market. And under certain circumstances, 

we can actually leverage research and development dollars in the 

private sector for homeland security applications. 

This is our first connection with the private sector. This is the 

output of our 12 capstone IPTs, the high-priority technology needs. 

And each one of the IPTs lists 12 or so areas that they are interested in, or problems that have been identified by our customers. 

When we first published this, you know, I got a lot of phone calls 

saying are you crazy? You are telling everyone what we are worried 

about here. 

But I went back to my, to a lesson I learned as a young submarine officer, where an old-time Captain—I mean, this guy was 

really old, he was probably 45—was teaching me how to do a traditional periscope approach and attack on a surface ship. And he 

looked over at Seaman Diller—and I will never forget Seaman 

Diller. He was from Snow Camp, North Carolina. May be in your 

district, I am not even sure. I did not think about that. 

Mr. PRICE. Pretty close. 

Mr. BUSWELL. But I will tell you, you know, it stuck with me, 

Seaman Diller from Snow Camp. But he was a fathometer operator. I mean, all he did was do the sounding and make sure the 

ship did not run aground. 

And the Captain pointed at him, and he said, does Seaman Diller 

know your attack plan? I said, Captain, does everybody have to 

know my attack plan? And he said, well, only if you want it executed. 

So here is our attack plan. And we want as many people, we 

want everyone, or as many people as possible, involved in the execution. 

So how do they do that? If I am in industry and I have an idea 

of how I can solve one of these high-priority technology needs, what 

do I do? We have got a long-range Broad Agency Announcement 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
488 

out; they can come in with white papers. We have received, we received over 300 white papers last year. And we are still in the process of evaluating them, because a lot of them came in late in the 

year. 

But we have asked for 41 full proposals out of that white paper 

process. And we have received those, and we have funded 27 of 

those. So we are identifying private sector capabilities to close our 

capability gaps. 

I will also mention, you know, the other aspect of our outreach 

is this five-year research and development plan. We tell everyone 

what we are going to be interested in doing research and development on in the next five years, so that they can make appropriate 

internal investment in their capabilities, and they can plan to support us when we are ready to go out with those, you know, with 

those solicitations over the next five years. 

I believe Undersecretary Cohen mentioned the commercialization 

project that we started last year. Dr. Tom Celucci, who is a laser 

physicist by trade, has led the Directorate’s relationship with business, and he has got the specific goal of rapidly commercializing 

products. He is committed to the outreach he needs with dozens of 

businesses. He has compiled a portfolio of about 300 businesses, 

with 2,000 technologies that are mapped to these capability gaps, 

that program managers can go to as they are planning their programs, and see what industry is already doing. And they are using 

that to good effect. 

We have also got the SECURE program, System Efficacy through 

Commercialization Utilization Relevance and Evaluation. You do 

not have a good acronym, you do not have a good program. But SECURE is, the idea there is if you tell industry what you need, and 

you tell them what a reasonable conservative estimate of the market would be, they will invest their own research and development 

dollars in order to, in order to solve those problems. 

Let me give you an example of how this has worked so far. We 

have, we got a demand from—this came out of some meetings that 

Secretary Chertoff had last summer with first responders. They felt 

like they needed a forensic camera that was capable of withstanding a blast, you know, for reconstruction and for law enforcement. 

So in June of last year we put out an Operational Requirements 

Document. We published this Operational Requirements Document 

on the web. Over the next three months we got 25-plus responses 

from companies that were interested in providing a forensic camera. Most of those dropped out when they found that we were not 

going to fund that; that we were just highlighting a market and a 

capability need. 

But a couple companies got it. And we have two examples here, 

two prototype examples that came in. And this is another. By December we had these prototypes in hand. In February at Aberdeen, 

we blew up a bus with these cameras installed in it, and we are 

evaluating the capability of those cameras to withstand the blast 

and to maintain the data, the visual data, on those, on what happened on that bus. 

So by July we will do, we will have that evaluated. If there are 

corrections that need to be made to these technologies, we will 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
489 

highlight those. TSA has committed to a pilot program to buy a 

number of these things, install them on buses, light rail, subways, 

and the infrastructure surrounding those kinds of things. And we 

expect that this will be a market release by fall. So that is an example of the commercialization effort, and it is functional. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, sir. Mr. Rodriguez. 

NON-FLAMMABLE GASOLINE AND LEVEE BREAK FIXES

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you very much. And I guess, similar to 

the Minority leader, I think he was talking about some of the 

projects in his area, and you were talking about how do we get 

something that is out there to the public as quickly as possible. 

I know we at Southwest Research have produced a gasoline. In 

Iraq, whenever the explosions occur on the vehicles, the soldiers 

sometimes do not get killed, but they burn to death. And this is a 

gasoline that basically, when you hit it, it does not burn. 

How do we move that along as quickly as possible? Or the project 

that you have here? I just had a levee break in Presidio, and 500 

people got displaced. How do we get that item that you have there 

to hold up the water, you know, as quickly as possible? 

Mr. BUSWELL. Well, the levee breach tool is just finishing. We 

have done a quarter-scale demonstration of that, and we are ready 

to do a full-scale. 

And in parallel with that, we are holding meetings with emergency managers. We had a conference in New Orleans about a 

month ago to address that. 

What is the business plan? Who is going to buy these? Where are 

we going to store them? How do we get them where we need them 

in a timely way? And you know, are there staging areas around the 

country? So we are trying to solve that problem with the state and 

local governments. Again, this is really important that we, you 

know, not just demonstrate this technology, but we come up with 

a way to get it out there. 

VEHICLE-BORNE IMPROVISED EXPLOSIVE DEVICES

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. This was actually the dams on the Mexican side 

release water, and it did not even rain. That is what flooded our 

community. And so it is going to happen again. And so it is just 

a matter in terms of how to best do that. At least I know about 

that one now. 

Let me ask you also, you mentioned the blast. We have research 

in the Pecos area where they have, in Iraq they were looking at the 

buses that were coming, well, the trucks that were coming in, exploding. And as the people came in, they ran a second one through 

there, and they were doing some of that research, also, you know. 

And you mentioned that explosive device in terms of areas that, as 

they do those studies, once again, how do we get it from there? And 

you mentioned the booklet that you have there, and people who get 

the information. That is critical for the communities to get it. 

I have ports of entry, and if they do the same thing there—send 

a truck, and explode, and then as people come and gather they 

send a second one and explode again and kill a lot more people, you 

know. And then how do we react to that? And how do we deal with 

that? 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
490 

I think we talked about, yesterday in that other hearing regarding something that, you know, the problem we had with the Inaugural here, how do we respond to situations like that with the research that we have? 

Mr. BUSWELL. Well, I think the fundamental question is, and 

this is the purpose of our thirteenth integrated product team, 

where we are bringing in the state and local first responders to 

highlight these kinds of issues for us. And by connections through 

associations, the National Sheriffs’ Association, the International 

Association of Chiefs of Police, Fire Chiefs, National Sheriffs’ Association, and individual first responder leaders around the country. 

We are bringing those people together to inform this thirteenth integrated product team. 

And that is a two-way, that is two-way communication. That is 

not, you know, we are not taking their information without feedback. We had a conference in Bellevue, Washington, at the end of 

February, where we brought together the first responder community. And they highlighted these very kind of issues. I mean, they 

gave us their top five, and we went off to work on them. 

And one of the ones was the exact scenario that you highlighted: 

these vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices. And they highlighted the same issue that you are talking about. 

We need to know what technology is in the pipeline so we can 

plan our concepts of operation, and we can plan our, you know, our 

procurement of these items. Because we cannot afford to bear inventory on items that we are not going to use every day. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Not only that, but nothing is worth having the 

technology and having the research, and not having it implemented 

when the need is there because no one is aware of it, or we are 

not sure how to pull it off. So the strategic plan is how to get that 

technology out there. 

Mr. BUSWELL. And we have to create some creative, I think, approaches to, you know, pooling these kinds of resources among, 

among communities, among states. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. And in that line, I know the Chairman talked 

a little bit in terms of the technology that is being devised from a 

cyber perspective. How do we make sure that people do not mess 

with it? I would hope you stay on top of that. And I know my time 

is over. 

Mr. PRICE. I am going to return to that in my next round of questioning, let our witness pick up on that. 

All right, Mr. Carter. 

LIST OF CAPABILITY NEEDS

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for being 

here. 

You have got an interesting job. Looking at your two publications 

that you just showed us, one of them is I guess a short-range plan, 

and one of them is a long-range plan. 

Mr. BUSWELL. Sort of. One of them is really a list of capability 

needs. These are the capabilities that our customers, the operating 

components of homeland security, and we will add to this year the 

thirteenth page, the first responder needs; and the other is our 

long-range funding profile, our milestones, the kinds of things that 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
491 

we think we are going to be delivering, and the things that we are 

going to start over the next five years. 

PRIORITIZATION OF S&T EFFORTS

Mr. CARTER. Well, now, is that, that first plan, is that with input 

from the various departments? Because one of the things that I 

have a question about is how you prioritize on where you put your 

Science and Technology efforts, when you have got so many hats 

in this particular agency? 

Mr. BUSWELL. Right. 

Mr. CARTER. And is that part of the prioritization formula that 

you work with? 

Mr. BUSWELL. It is. Let me talk about that a little bit. I think 

you have in front of you the 13 IPTs, right? 

Each one of those, as you can see, is led by an operating component. So that at the top of each one of those diamonds is the lead 

or the co-lead of each of those, of each of those IPTs. And they tell 

us, it comes straight from them, what their priorities are. 

Now, once that is compiled, once we have offered projects that 

close those capability gaps, then we take it to the Technology Oversight Group. The Technology Oversight Group is chaired by the 

Deputy Secretary of the Department; that includes the Undersecretary for Management, because that position is responsible for overseeing the acquisition of all of the components. And it does not 

mean anything unless the components acquire the technology. 

And so the Undersecretary for Management is involved, and also 

the Undersecretary for NPPD, because of the broad preparedness 

aspect. 

So that allows the Deputy Secretary insight into what the components are and have highlighted as their top priorities, and allows 

trades to be made across there. Perhaps the first unfunded priority 

in one of the IPTs is more important than one of the other funded 

priorities in the other IPT, and we can make those adjustments in 

where the funding goes at that point. And that is done as part of 

the budget preparation. 

Mr. CARTER. So they basically say we need something to find X, 

anthrax. But they do not say how they want it to work. And you 

go over and put it out and say, okay, who has got a great idea on 

how to find anthrax? 

Mr. BUSWELL. And we specifically want them to not tell us how 

to do this, because we want them to be highlighting capability 

needs, not capability solutions. Because part of our job is to look 

at the tradeoff among technologies and find out the best combination of ways to accomplish the mission that they have highlighted 

as—— 

SECURITY OF CAPABILITY INFORMATION

Mr. CARTER. And I understand your battle plan idea, and you 

gave a good example of that. But the question I would have is, are 

there going to be things that are in that request that are going to 

be things that you can keep secure? Ideas that you need to, in 

other words, they are not for publication? 

Mr. BUSWELL. If you read this, this is a teaser. When you get to 

the, when you get to the real fundamental operational requireVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:01 Jul 21, 2009 Jkt 050121 PO 00000 Frm 00491 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\50121P2.XXX 50121P2

CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
492 

ments, in some cases, yes. Those will be sensitive to the point 

where we will not be publishing those, other than in a, you know, 

a closed forum. 

But most of our work is unclassified. I mean, it really is, we really are looking at unclassified kinds of things, because of the people 

that are going to have to use it. If you are going to distribute these 

things en masse to border patrol agents, TSOs, cops on the beat, 

firemen, you cannot be worried about security clearances for all of 

those people. We have to put together technologies that, you know, 

that can be used en masse. So we try to keep it unclassified. 

Mr. CARTER. If I am running out of time, tell me. Would this go 

clear to the idea of satellite locations over borders and stuff like 

that? 

Mr. BUSWELL. I will have to go back and—I do not know, I will 

be honest with you. I will take that one for the record. I am not 

sure what we have got as far as using satellites for those kinds of 

things. I will have to—— 

Mr. CARTER. I will have that question—— 

Mr. BUSWELL. Yes, I am just not sure what programs that we— 

we are not funding any Science and Technology, any satellite 

Science and Technology programs. But I am not sure what the Department has in place. So I will find that out and get back to you. 

[The information follows:] 

Question. Would S&T share the location of satellites over the border with State 

and local jurisdictions? 

Response. The Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) does not have any satellite programs. 

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Farr. 

CALIFORNIA HOMELAND SECURITY CONSORTIUM

Mr. FARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having this 

hearing. 

I think that what we are experiencing on the civilian side is essentially what has been there, and we have not had much exposure 

to it on the military side, because a lot of these military technologies were not needed domestically. And now we are needing 

lots of, you know, lots of questions are being asked. 

My specific question follows up on Mr. Rogers’s issues about how 

to best—I mean, here we have sort of federal government needs. 

And with those needs we have buying power, and so everybody will 

rush to sell us something. 

And it seems to me, one, you need to be coordinated in not just 

the federal community, but in the state community and local community, as well. You need to build these consortiums, which you 

have done. 

I know we have one out in California, the California Homeland 

Security Consortium, which is a partnership of 23 academic, federal, state, and local government organizations and private sector 

firms, who are conducting approved field experiments in maritime 

security, cyber security, and critical infrastructure protection. 

And we house that in the Naval Post-Graduate School in Monterey. And I wonder if you intend to continue to use S&T expertise 

of that Homeland Security Consortium at the Naval Post-Graduate 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
493 

School for solutions on homeland security problems, like those in 

the maritime security and cyber security and critical infrastructure 

protection. 

Mr. BUSWELL. Yes, sir, thank you for that question. We are. We 

have got a strong relationship with the Naval Post-Graduate 

School. We started a program two years ago to look at funding PhD 

students from Homeland Security at the Post-Graduate School. The 

idea was let us look at homeland security technology experts, not 

just in the Science and Technology Directorate, and specifically not 

in the Science and Technology Directorate, but across the Department. And see, you know, how would the Department benefit by 

some high-level education of those folks. 

It did not work. We could not get volunteers to do that, and we 

could not—the components were essentially nonsupportive of the 

idea. 

So we are now re-wickering that into something that might be 

more workable. It could be a Master’s program that we are going 

to do at Post-Graduate School. But I am going out there with some 

of my team early in April to meet with the Provost and the President of the Post-Graduate School to see how we can best do that. 

On the research side, this consortium that you mentioned is very 

interesting to us, especially in our new emphasis on first responder 

and emergency management capability across, across the country. 

Monterey, with the Post-Graduate School, is a unique, has a 

unique position, I think to be an important pilot program for those 

kinds of things. The local government has identified some things 

that they are concerned about, and we are going to go and meet 

with them also, and see what we can do with the research capabilities of the Post-Graduate School. With the understanding that the 

students there who, you know, many of whom have just returned 

from Iraq, Afghanistan, and have operational experience in managing crises and understanding the kinds of things that make people, make people want to do bad things. 

And we are going to use that as much as we can to run this pilot 

in Monterey. And I think, I am excited about it. I think it is going 

to be successful. 

LIQUID DETECTION EFFORTS

Mr. FARR. One question. I go through TSA every week. How 

come, if we are so smart, we cannot take a bottle of water on 

board? You can take it on board, you just have to buy it inside the 

circle. 

Mr. BUSWELL. I think it might be, I think there might be a conspiracy there among the water manufacturers, but I am not sure. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. FARR. Well, it has also to do with cosmetics and things like 

that. 

Mr. BUSWELL. Exactly. 

Mr. FARR. We heard, I heard that the technology is going to be 

able to, very quickly be able to not have to dump all that stuff; to 

be able to run it through screening. 

Mr. BUSWELL. I think that is right. We are looking at—the existing technology that TSA is using in their Advanced Technology XRay Program we believe has the capability, with the right algoVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:01 Jul 21, 2009 Jkt 050121 PO 00000 Frm 00493 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\50121P2.XXX 50121P2

CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
494 

rithm and software combinations, to identify liquids. To be able to 

tell you this is a liquid that is of concern, that this is a liquid that 

we do not know what it is, and that this is a liquid that is okay 

to go. 

We are not there yet. But we are doing a lot of evaluation at the 

Transportation Security Lab on new algorithms. We are preparing 

data packages that then we are providing to vendors that they can 

use in developing algorithms, and I think we are, we are going to 

get there. 

In parallel, one of the things that we are doing is, in the innovation portfolio we are looking at, I mentioned MAGVIZ. It is a magnetic resonance capability. It works off of really medical kinds of 

magnetic resonance, where it will identify what a liquid is. And we 

are looking at—we have proven that it can do that. Now what we 

are looking at is, how do you display that to a TSO. 

And you know, what we would like to do is be able to say this 

liquid is okay, it comes through on their screen as green. This one 

is a problem; you can make a homemade explosive out of this liquid, so we are not going to allow this on the plane. It shows up 

as red. This one, we are not sure what it is; it is not in our portfolio, it is not in our library of liquids, so it comes up as yellow and 

will require additional screening. 

But we demonstrated that at the Albuquerque Airport this last 

year, and it was successful. So, and that is being run out of Los 

Alamos National Laboratory, and has a private partner—private 

sector partner, also. 

So we have got a product possibility there. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you very much. Mr. Culberson. 

PRIVATE SECTOR INVOLVEMENT

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very 

much for your testimony today. 

I would like to ask Mr. Buswell about any unobligated balances 

in the past that agencies had. It has been my impression, and I 

know you are new on the job, and in previous years on the committee I have been frankly disturbed about the amount of money 

that has been spent in the Agency without a lot of tangible result. 

And I know you are working hard to correct that. 

The private sector, of course, I would like, if I could, to first of 

all ask about, could you explain for the committee, give us a little 

better idea about how you are using competition and allowing the 

private sector to compete in a way that is objective and peer-reviewed, to ensure that the Agency is acquiring the very best technology at the very best price to the taxpayer? Remembering that 

we face record debt and deficit. I am sure you have got kids; we 

are all concerned, we want to make sure that every dollar we spend 

is spent wisely. 

Mr. BUSWELL. Absolutely right. Okay, let me start from the beginning of the process to the point where if we have an idea for 

a project, the first thing that the program managers do is thorough 

market research, i.e. what is already being done? What can we leverage that is already existing, or is getting us to the point where 

we have a jumping-off point that is not creating something out of 

whole cloth? So that is the first thing. 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
495 

And then they look at, they do an analysis of alternatives as to 

how we can go about that. Is it best done at a national laboratory? 

Is it best done in the private sector? Is it best done at a university? 

And that is reviewed by the supervisory level within the Directorate. 

After that, once a decision has been made and our Office of Procurement Operations agrees that the approach is fair and is the 

best approach for, for the acquisition, we go—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. That is what I want to zero in on, is the decision. Who makes the decision, and how do you ensure that you are 

getting the best value for the dollar in a way that is objective and 

peer-reviewed? 

Mr. BUSWELL. Well, the peer review, the analysis of alternatives 

is done by the program manager and reviewed by their supervisor. 

So we have division heads across the Directorate, six division heads 

who are senior executive level, and look at the analysis that was 

done for reasonableness. Is this a fair and reasonable approach to 

executing this program? 

We get an independent look at that by a contracting officer, who 

also looks to see yes, does this, you know, does this meet the criteria of fair and reasonable. 

And quite honestly, we do about 20% of our funding through 

inter-agency agreements with DOE labs, and about 45% is done 

competitively in industry. So the others, some are universities, and 

some are other federal agencies. 

But the real question becomes where do you get the best value 

for the taxpayer dollar. And is that done by an inter-agency agreement with a national lab or another federal partner, or is that best 

done competitively. 

My personal opinion is competition is always good. So if you can 

go to a competitive, you know, competitive award, you are always 

going to get the best value. 

Mr. CULBERSON. It seems it is ultimately up to a single procurement officer, with a second opinion from, as you said, a—— 

Mr. BUSWELL. It is not a procurement officer. They are a technical expert, they are a subject matter expert on that particular 

technology. They make a recommendation to their boss; their boss 

then says yes, that makes sense to me. And then on the procurement side, they look at it for fair and reasonable, for a fair and reasonable assessment. 

UNEXPENDED FUNDS

Mr. CULBERSON. And money that you do not spend, it rolls over 

to the next year? 

Mr. BUSWELL. Sometimes we have an unobligated balance at the 

end of the year. We have had that. It has been shrinking over the 

last couple of years, and we have been really focused on getting 

money out the door, because nothing happens until, you know, 

until we have got money on contract. 

But that carries over into the next year, and we execute that, as 

well. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Forgive me if this has already been asked, Mr. 

Chairman. I have got two subcommittee hearings right on top of 

each other, so I was running a little behind. 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
496 

But their committee instructed the Science and Technology Office 

to report back to us and tell us what you have been doing to attempt to reduce a significant amount of unextended obligations in 

your R&D accounts. 

Have you already submitted that report to the committee? There 

was one report due at the first quarter of Fiscal Year 2009. 

Mr. BUSWELL. Is this the contracting—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. The first quarterly brief to the subcommittee 

should occur after the close of the first quarter of Fiscal Year 2009. 

Mr. BUSWELL. I will have to check. Two weeks, I am being told 

by my CFO, is the first one. So, that is right. 

Mr. CULBERSON. And of course, we do not want you just shoveling money out the door. I will tell you, my impression is that over 

the years, that you have probably spent about $6 billion since the 

creation of the Homeland Security Department. 

When I first got on the subcommittee, I was dumbfounded that 

you did not have any products that you could even show for all the 

money that the taxpayers are invested. And you have got to remember, the P. Peterson Foundation headed up by David Walker 

estimates that every living American would have to write a check 

for about $180,000 apiece to pay off existing unfunded liabilities of 

the United States. And that was as of last March; it has gotten a 

lot worse. 

So it is very important that the money be spent wisely. 

Mr. BUSWELL. Absolutely right. But it is also important, and it 

is important that we get it spent wisely in a timely manner. Because we do not get any technologies until we, until we start getting that money on contract. 

I am committed to the best value for the taxpayer dollars, without question. And that is, you know, that is unequivocal. 

But I want to make sure—and I also want to say that I am working really hard with the Office of Procurement Operations that reports to the Undersecretary for Management to make sure that we 

are doing these things the right way and we are doing them in a 

timely way. 

Mr. CULBERSON. But will the report that you are going to give 

the committee in two weeks also talk to us about making sure the 

money that you have spent has been spent effectively? 

Mr. BUSWELL. I do not know. Is that part of it? 

No, that is not part of it. We will explain the obligation to spend 

under policies balanced by an extended budget. 

Mr. CULBERSON. If you are only telling us that you have got it 

spent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

RESILIENT GRID PROJECT CYBER VULNERABILITIES

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Buswell, I want to return briefly, and 

you can elaborate on this for the record if you wish, because I have 

another question I want to get to, and I think we are going to face 

some Floor votes here before too long. 

But I do want to give you a chance to respond further to the earlier questions about the resilient electric grid project and the 

vulnerabilities of the smart grid technology. That is, the cyber aspect, which you had referred to, but not really elaborated. 

Mr. BUSWELL. Right. 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
497 

Mr. PRICE. What are these vulnerabilities, as you can briefly assess them? And how is the resilient grid project addressing the 

cyber aspect? 

Mr. BUSWELL. I am not an expert on cyber security, and I did 

not stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. So we will get you, 

I will get you a full answer on the smart grid aspects. 

[The information follows:] 

Question. What are the cyber security vulnerabilities of REG? How is the REG 

project addressing cyber security aspects? 

Response. The REG technology is uniquely resistant to the vulnerabilities that 

make the existing power transmission technology susceptible to cascading power 

failures due to natural or manmade events which include cyber attacks. The current 

limiting nature of the REG technology reduces a power grid’s vulnerability to cyber 

attacks and would allow existing and future power grids to be designed to mitigate 

the impact of cyber attacks. 

But let me just tell you some of the things that we are doing, 

because the cyber security is a critical part of our portfolio. 

DOMAIN NAME SECURITY

And it all starts with some of this domain-name system security. 

In other words, you know, the @.org kind of, .gov types of things. 

Are we sure, when we go to those kinds of websites or we are taking things from those kinds of websites, that it is who they really 

say they are. And that is one of the things that our cyber security 

folks are heavily involved in. The secure signer effort, you know, 

those kinds of things. 

So the first part of, or the first aspect of cyber security is making 

sure that the person that you think you are talking to on the internet is actually who they say they are. And we are working hard 

on that. 

We have actually delivered a couple of things. The Root kit detection technology, which looks at malicious software programs to take 

control of a computer operating system, which could be the kind of 

thing that you are talking about in a systems control application. 

In other words, can we take control of the electric grid operating 

system, and do nefarious things with that? 

That root kit detection and mitigation technology has been developed. It was developed by a company in Maryland, and has been 

bought by MicroSoft. So MicroSoft is now incorporating that into 

their operating systems. 

There is another similar active malware protection system that, 

again, increased security and reliability of the computers, that 

could be used to operate critical infrastructure. That has been, that 

was developed by a company in Virginia called Endeavor Systems, 

and has been purchased by McAfee. And they are incorporating 

that into their, into their security system. 

So we have done a lot of work on cyber security at large, much 

of which applies to the security of critical infrastructure and the 

operating systems that go with that. 

Mr. PRICE. Well, we would welcome a further submission on—— 

Mr. BUSWELL. Absolutely. 

Mr. PRICE [continuing]. The way you are leveraging these general cyber security efforts to apply in particular to the electric grid. 

[The information follows:] 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
498 

Question. How is S&T leveraging its general cyber security efforts to apply in particular to the electric grid? 

Response. S&T is conducting R&D to improve security for process control systems 

(PCS). PCSs control water supply, electrical power, gas and oil pipelines, and other 

distributed processes. The R&D seeks to advance interoperability with existing PCS 

systems. This interoperability will allow PCS systems to easily integrate new products into existing systems and enhance information sharing within the critical infrastructure sectors using PCS. 

Mr. BUSWELL. Happy to do that. Yes, sir. 

NBAF SAFETY ON MAINLAND

Mr. PRICE. Let me turn now to the National Bio- and Agro-Defense facility. Manhattan, Kansas, as you know, has been designated as the site for construction of NBAF. This follows the December publication of the NBAF final environmental impact statement or risk assessment. 

Obviously, we take this risk assessment very seriously. The prospect of bringing such a highly infectious disease as Foot-and-Mouth 

to the United States mainland requires DHS to be very careful and 

deliberate; and the GAO, as you well know, has underlined that 

challenge in a report which we took careful note of in our last 

year’s bill. 

We restricted any funds for being obligated for construction of 

the NBAF, until the GAO had reviewed the DHS’s risk assessment, 

in light of their earlier findings. 

I understand that GAO work is ongoing with the Department, 

and that the DIS will be supplemented by such further information 

as they may need to, to reach a completion of the safety of doing 

this research on the mainland. 

Let me just ask you, if the GAO finds that this environmental 

impact statement does not support DHS’s conclusion that foot-andmouth work can be done as safely on the mainland as it can on 

Plum Island, on an island location, how would you proceed concerning that research? And then I am interested, of course, in what 

kind of additional information you may think, you think may be 

necessary to determine the additional environmental, economic, security costs of a mainland site, as opposed to the island site? 

Mr. BUSWELL. The first part of the question, what would we do, 

I am not in a position to answer that question at this point. I will 

go back and get you an Administration position on that. 

[The information follows:] 

Question. Administration position on NBAF choices should GAO recommend not 

building NBAF on the mainland? 

Response. DHS appreciates the value of the GAO independent review of the 

NBAF Environmental Impact Statement risk assessment, and, once complete, will 

take the results of the GAO review into account in NBAF planning. 

But as for the second part, I think we would not have selected 

Manhattan, Kansas as the site if we did not believe that there was 

sufficient work done to, for us to believe that that was a safe place 

to do it. 

There are, we have to remember that Plum Island was built over 

50 years ago. In the last 50 years, there has been a lot of bio-safety 

improvements done, and we handle a lot of nasty things in bio-security Lab 3 and 4, laboratories on the mainland. And we know 

how to do this safely. 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
499 

And I am confident that the design, the operating procedures 

that we have put in place for NBAF will be successful. And we can, 

we can expect to succeed in protecting our agriculture from an inadvertent release of some of these diseases that could be devastating. 

Mr. PRICE. Well, we are aware that that is your conclusion. And 

of course, up to a point, that is reassuring. But we are looking for 

much more, as is the GAO, than simply an assertion, in this regard. 

And we are going to have to have, I think, the kind of scrutiny 

of this that it deserves. And so we will look forward to seeing this 

matter worked on diligently, and resolved within a reasonable 

timeframe. 

Mr. BUSWELL. And we will be as open-kimono with the GAO as 

we can be. There are no secrets here. We will lay out to them exactly the research that was done, and the work that was done that 

allowed us to draw the conclusion that this was a safe place to site 

NBAF. 

INFORMATION AVAILABILITY

Mr. ROGERS. As you have said, most of what you do is unclassified. And yet, we know that al Qaeda and others hack into our systems all the while, to find the vulnerabilities that we have. They 

do not need to be very diligent, because we print it in our publications, and it is on the web, and so on. And by necessity, you have 

to do this kind of work in order to get the private sector involved, 

among others. 

Where is the happy medium here? Is there a way to do what we 

need to do, and yet not educate our enemies? 

Mr. BUSWELL. Absolutely. I think, you know, as I said, if you 

look at this, this is a teaser. This does not tell you the level of detail that you would need to plan and conduct an attack on, on any 

one of these areas relevant to homeland security. 

Mr. ROGERS. But it does tell you where we are weak, and where 

we have an Achilles heel. 

Mr. BUSWELL. It tells you the areas that we are, that we are focused on, and where we think we need to improve, that is right. 

To the extent—and these are areas that we would like technology 

to help us in. 

That is not to say that we have a vulnerability. We may be compensating with that vulnerability, for that vulnerability in other 

ways with additional manpower, with additional operating procedures that we could then avoid if we had technology that helped 

us. 

So this is technology. And I, you know, I am very comfortable 

with the level of detail that we are going to here. 

Now, when we get into some of the projects where we are looking 

at, you know, I gave the example of the homemade explosives, the 

liquids. The kinds of liquids that we are looking for, the amounts 

that we want to be able to detect, those sorts of details are the 

kinds of things that we do not want to publicize, and we will not 

publicize. We will keep those as secure with the vendors only, with 

vendors that can work with classified information. 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
500 

CONTAINER SECURITY DEVICES

Mr. ROGERS. Now, let me ask you about the container security 

devices. We have been at this for how many years, four or five 

years, just at S&T. And I am told now that you are looking at an 

advanced container security device. Tell me what is going on. 

Mr. BUSWELL. Let me talk about container security sort of writ 

large here. 

One aspect of container security is a container security device. 

That would be a device that would lock the doors of a container, 

and would tell us if the doors were unlocked. That is one aspect 

of container security. 

That would not tell us if somebody came into the side of a container. It would not tell us if something was in the container to 

begin with. So we are looking at all of those kinds of aspects of container security. 

Let me talk about a couple of things that we are doing. We have 

a program where we are looking at—and let me also say that this 

container security technology and policy is all intertwined. And I 

think some of the, some of the non-progress that may have occurred early on in this program, before the last couple of years, 

really had to do with the hand-wringing over the policy versus the 

technology. 

And what we decided to do is, look, if we provide the technology, 

it gives us, it allows us to start the policy discussions up here. 

Where if we do not have any technology, we are talking about policy discussions way down here. 

So let me talk about—and there also has to be, without regulation there has to be a voluntary reason for shippers to do this. So 

they have to have some value added to implementing these technologies. 

We are looking at a hybrid composite container, for example. Fifteen percent lighter than the steel containers, we can embed sensors in the walls of these containers that will tell us if the container has been breached. We can put sensors in the containers 

that will tell us if there is something nefarious in the container. 

And we are working on those sensors, as well. 

So we are looking at connecting that to the Marine Asset Tracking Tag system that we are demonstrating right now between Yokohama, Japan, and the U.S. We have got a number of these 

things that are wireless and can communicate the status of the 

container across multiple bands: satellite, wireless, WiFi, cell 

phone, real time. So it will tell you this container has been opened, 

real time. 

We are looking at the Advanced Container Security Device. And 

we are still working on the Container Security Device, and we 

think that we will have the testing done on that. We have got two 

vendors that have come in, and we will complete the testing of that 

by the end of this calendar year. And it will be available for market 

shortly thereafter. 

But we still get back to the policy. Why should someone use this? 

It has to be of value to them. So if we can help them with their 

cargo-tracking capabilities; if not only is it telling you that this container is secure, but it is also telling you where your container is; 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
501 

those are of interest to shippers. Those kinds of things are of interest to shippers. 

Mr. ROGERS. Have you asked, just ask UPS to tell you how they 

do it? 

Mr. BUSWELL. No, UPS and FedEx are really good at it. Walmart 

is really good at it. But they are not international, but they are not 

working in the volumes that we are talking about, and they are not 

working in the security environment that we are talking about. So 

there is some work to be done. 

We think we are going to get there, but we have to work with 

CBP on the policy aspects of this in parallel with the technology 

development. Because the technology, you know, as we have said 

several times already in this forum, technology without implementation is of no use. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Rodriguez. 

STRATEGIC PLANS

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you very much. And once again, thank 

you for being here with us. 

On your chart, I know that the first one you mentioned, the information and management, are the importance of educating and 

getting that information across. 

In speaking about that, when you look at border security and 

chemical, bio, and cyber security, do we have strategic plans that 

are available, that people can see in those specific areas? Do we 

have that? 

Mr. BUSWELL. I think it varies from component to component. 

What they have published as far as their strategy goes, I mean, of 

course the Department has a strategic plan that we dovetail into. 

We are operating probably four layers below, you know, that strategy. 

We take our, in these integrated product teams for example, in 

the information management, we are talking to the Intelligence 

and Analysis Branch of Homeland Security as to what their needs 

are. And they have a strategy as to how they want to compile information and get it to fusion centers—for example, the state and 

local folks—for use. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. And in terms of not only the strategy, but in 

terms of also the things that I know, you know, we kind of look 

at who is bringing in the explosives, who is bringing in the bio. But 

the more natural things, on the biochemical for example, the TICs 

that come across that we have a serious problem with, that could 

basically, you know, quarantine all U.S. meat and create a serious 

problem. Do we look at those kind of things? 

We have the Carrizo cane that creates a serious problem for border patrol and security on the border. Do we have a plan there to, 

you know, on those aspects on cyber security, to continue the importance of educating people in the private sector, and assuring 

that they will be cautious? 

Mr. BUSWELL. There are—let me take them sort of one at a time. 

The Carrizo cane, we are working hard on that with CBP. They 

have got some plans; we have got some experimental ideas that we 

are looking forward to starting soon. So that is one—— 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
502 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Let me know if I can help, because we need to 

get rid of as much of that stuff as we can. 

Mr. BUSWELL. We agree. We agree. As far as the strategic plans 

in other areas, cyber, they are of varying maturity, I will say, 

across the government, across the entire government. Cyber is obviously something that there is a huge inter-agency effort on. 

And we take our cues from their plans. So the investments that 

we make are, are advised by those plans, and advised by the highest-priority capability needs that those plans address. 

So I would tell you that we do not invent the science that we do 

research on, we do not invent the areas. We take that from the customers. 

CYBER INTRUSIONS

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. And on a more secure basis, on cyber for example, I know that when I was in Higher Education back in the Texas 

House, they did not tell us about the number of attempted rapes 

or things that happened on a university, because they wanted to 

keep it quiet. 

The same for the private sector. I know that there is problems 

in the banking system with cyber. They are going to keep that 

quiet, because it is not good for the consumer to hear that. 

How do we begin to work with the private sector to really see 

how serious the problem is? Because I know that it has doubled 

and quadrupled, and even doubled again in terms of the whole 

issue of cyber intrusions that have occurred. 

Mr. BUSWELL. I am going to take that for the record, because I 

am not sure what we have across the government that talks about 

that. 

But I think you are having a cyber hearing here in a little bit. 

And one of the witnesses will be the Program Manager, Doug 

Maughan, who runs our cyber program. And he is fully versed on 

these things. 

So if I can defer to Doug at a future hearing, that would be terrific. But he is fully engaged. 

[The information follows:] 

Question. What is the magnitude of cyber intrusions in the private sector and how 

are we working with them on that? 

Response. According to a case study published by the U.S. Cert in 2005 (http:// 

www.us-cert.gov/controllsystems/pdf/undirectedlattack0905.pdf), cyber intrusions 

cost companies billions of dollars per year. The S&T Cyber Security R&D investment activities directly addresses a wide range of cyber attacks and vulnerabilities 

affecting both the Government and private sectors spanning malware detection, improved monitoring and reporting, and technologies to improve the security of existing Internet infrastructure. A prime example is S&T’s Domain Name System Security (DNSSEC) initiative. DNS is a critical underpinning of today’s Internet, responsible for mapping Internet Protocol (IP) numbers to domain names and without 

which the Internet would be unusable. Various types of DNS based attacks have 

been directed toward the private sector to succcessfully attack business-critical processes, prevent access to web sites, and compromise customer identities, accounts, 

and computers. Many DNS attacks can be prevented through the deployment of new 

security mechanisms for signing and validating DNS data. The DNSSEC initiative 

provides these solutions while driving their deployment, adoption, and use to help 

secure a crucial element of Internet infrastructure for both the private sector and 

Government. A DNSSEC Industry Coalition recently formed to work collaboratively 

to facilitate DNSSEC adoption. 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
503 

Mr. PRICE. We will be having an Executive Session on cyber security later in the season. But in the meantime, what you can furnish for the record along these lines, we would—— 

Mr. BUSWELL. My pleasure. 

Mr. PRICE [continuing]. Be very glad to see. I think we can get 

in the remaining questions here. The votes have been called. I will 

ask both questioners and answerers to proceed, very briefly though, 

starting with Mr. Carter. 

FOLIAGE-PENETRATING RADAR

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Real quick, getting back 

to what my colleague from Texas was talking about, this Carrizo 

cane. 

I know that one of the issues that has been out there that the 

Air Force and a bunch of other people have been trying to figure 

out, how to get foliage-penetrating radar to go through things like 

that cane, you know. I am not as sensitive as others; I just cut it 

down. It is a sensitive issue. 

Do you have any idea what kinds of technology that they are 

looking at in particular for that, for penetrating that pretty dense 

cane and mesquite rush barriers along the Rio Grande River? 

Mr. BUSWELL. I would, I am not sure that foliage-penetrating— 

we do not have a program in foliage-penetrating radar. 

Mr. CARTER. If you do not have it yet, I think it is risky. I think 

you have got to get—— 

Mr. BUSWELL. Yes, sir, that is right. And as you said, there is 

a lot of work going on in the Department of Defense for those kinds 

of capabilities. 

We would probably tend to leverage those investments that are 

much larger than anything that we could probably bring to bear. 

That is our strategy there. 

As far as getting rid of that, you know, that nasty Carrizo cane, 

there is a combination effort of herbicide, and we have got an insect that will eat it. We have got a wasp that will eat the cane that 

we are planning on testing down there, you know, with CBP. 

I read in the newspaper last night that there has been an injunction on doing anything against Carrizo cane. So we will—— 

Mr. CARTER. Well, we got more than our share of wasps down 

there. I hunt down in that area; we do not need any more wasps, 

thank you. [Laughter.] 

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. All right, Mr. Farr. 

MITOC

Mr. FARR. Thank you. What I was interested in was MITOC program, essentially developed through the military and the Navy and 

used in, for the first time, kind of operational in the tsunami in 

India. And when they came back, they improved it. And then working with the private sector, field-trialed it in Kentucky. And I guess 

that is where the university has really taken it on as a center 

there. 

Those are the kinds of things that I am really interested in seeing that we do that is an operable connection. And I know you are 

going out to Monterey. And I was reading your testimony that you 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
504 

want to decrease the time for detection of a wide area of bio-aerosol 

release? The Navy lab out there has done remarkable experiments 

on this, that is essentially the Navy lab dealing with weather, because the Navy weather station is there. 

Mr. BUSWELL. Right. 

Mr. FARR. But you might check it out. It is right next to the campus of the—— 

Mr. BUSWELL. My pleasure. I have been there several times to 

METOC there at the—— 

Mr. FARR. So that is all the comment I had to make. Thank you 

for the hearing. 

Mr. BUSWELL. Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. And with that, we will go off to do our 

duty on the Floor. But we want to thank you for the good work you 

are doing, and for this helpful testimony this morning. I look forward to working with you as we put the budget together for the 

coming year. 

Mr. BUSWELL. My pleasure. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. And the Subcommittee is adjourned. 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
505 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 828 here 50121B.089
506 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 829 here 50121B.090
507 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 830 here 50121B.091
508 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 831 here 50121B.092
509 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 832 here 50121B.093
510 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 833 here 50121B.094
511 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 834 here 50121B.095
512 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 835 here 50121B.096
513 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 836 here 50121B.097
514 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 837 here 50121B.098
515 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 838 here 50121B.099
516 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 839 here 50121B.100
517 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 840 here 50121B.101
518 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 841 here 50121B.102
519 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 842 here 50121B.103
520 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 843 here 50121B.104
521 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 844 here 50121B.105
522 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 845 here 50121B.106
523 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 846 here 50121B.107
524 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 847 here 50121B.108
525 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 848 here 50121B.109
526 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 849 here 50121B.110
527 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 850 here 50121B.111
528 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 851 here 50121B.112
529 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 852 here 50121B.113
530 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 853 here 50121B.114
531 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 854 here 50121B.115
532 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 855 here 50121B.116
533 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 856 here 50121B.117
534 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 857 here 50121B.118
535 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 858 here 50121B.119
536 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 859 here 50121B.120
537 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 860 here 50121B.121
538 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 861 here 50121B.122
539 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 862 here 50121B.123
540 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 863 here 50121B.124
541 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 864 here 50121B.125
542 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 865 here 50121B.126
543 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 866 here 50121B.127
544 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 867 here 50121B.128
545 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 868 here 50121B.129
546 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 869 here 50121B.130
547 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 870 here 50121B.131
548 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 871 here 50121B.132
549 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 872 here 50121B.133
550 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 873 here 50121B.134
551 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 874 here 50121B.135
552 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 875 here 50121B.136
553 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 876 here 50121B.137
554 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 877 here 50121B.138
555 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 878 here 50121B.139
556 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 879 here 50121B.140
557 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 880 here 50121B.141
558 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 881 here 50121B.142
559 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 882 here 50121B.143
560 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 883 here 50121B.144
561 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 884 here 50121B.145
562 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 885 here 50121B.146
563 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 886 here 50121B.147
564 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 887 here 50121B.148
565 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 888 here 50121B.149
566 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 889 here 50121B.150
567 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 890 here 50121B.151
568 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 891 here 50121B.152
(569) 

THURSDAY, APRIL 23, 2009. 

TESTIMONY OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

MEMBER REQUESTS 

WITNESSES 

HON. KEITH ELLISON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 

STATE OF MINNESOTA 

HON. DEBBIE HALVORSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM 

THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

HON. HENRY CUELLAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 

STATE OF TEXAS 

HON. RUSH D. HOLT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 

STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN PRICE

Mr. PRICE. The subcommittee will come to order. Welcome. Today 

we will be taking testimony from Members of Congress who have 

asked for project consideration as part of the fiscal year 2010 budget requests for the Department of Homeland Security. 

As I have previously stated, the subcommittee earmarks funding 

within three areas of DHS: for predisaster mitigation, for emergency operations centers, and for bridges that are deemed an obstruction to navigation and must be altered. On occasion the subcommittee earmarks projects outside of these categories, but it is 

uncommon. 

Of course, Members may also make programmatic requests that 

do not require a specific earmark, we will welcome any suggestions 

along those lines today as well, and we look forward to the customary input from Members throughout the entire appropriations 

process. 

We look forward to hearing from our Members today, beginning 

with Congressman Ellison. Keith please step up to the table. Your 

full written statement will be entered into the record, so I ask that 

you limit your oral remarks to a five minute presentation. 

Before we begin, however, let me ask our Ranking Member, Mr. 

Rogers, for any comments he wants to make. 

Mr. ROGERS. I have no comments. 

Mr. PRICE. No comments, so we will proceed. 

Keith Ellison, a Member from Minnesota, welcome. Please proceed. 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
570 

THURSDAY, APRIL 23, 2009. 

MEMBER REQUESTS 

WITNESS 

HON. KEITH ELLISON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 

STATE OF MINNESOTA 

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to 

present today, and also let me thank Ranking Member Rogers. I 

certainly appreciate the opportunity and really appreciate being 

able to take part in this forum. 

I am here today to provide additional details for an earmark request that I have submitted on behalf of the City of Minneapolis. 

This is a request for $1 million to build a new emergency operations center in Minneapolis. This new center would provide the 

needed space and required technology to effectively manage future 

emergency incidents in Minneapolis, as well as the greater Twin 

Cities metro area. 

In August 2007, we experienced a collapse of the Interstate 35W 

bridge in Minneapolis, and this dramatic event in which we lost 13 

members of our community, and over a hundred people suffered severe injuries, also highlighted the importance of this project. 

More importantly I think, this tragedy helped to show the nation 

that a well-organized emergency response saves lives. Many people 

thought that more than 13 people would have lost their lives in 

this tragic incident, but because of the quick emergency response, 

many people were in fact saved. Of course, every minute and every 

hour counts when such a tragedy strikes. 

The bridge collapse also revealed the shortcomings of the undersized and poorly equipped Minneapolis Emergency Operations Center. I will refer to it as the EOC. The EOC was the command center coordinating the local, state and federal emergency response to 

the bridge collapse. 

The Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, and the 

United States Fire Administration, USFA, in an after action assessment stated that the current Minneapolis EOC was inadequate 

to meet the needs of a complex emergency incident. Let me quote 

from the report: 

‘‘The EOC is located in the basement of city hall and is used 

when a large-scale emergency or disturbance occurs that involves 

multiple city agencies. The EOC is essentially a single room, which 

did not have enough space for all of the representatives from the 

organizations having statutory authority to be present. 

‘‘There is not enough room for a policy coordinating group, usually staffed by political and administrative leaders, or for other 

planning, logistical or public information functions. The inadequate 

size and functionality of the current EOC was rated by most respondents as the biggest obstacle to management of the response. 

‘‘Particularly during the evening of the collapse, the EOC was 

simply not capable of handling the number of staff and elected officials who reported to the Center.’’ 

I can testify since I was there myself and recognized that we just 

had a severe space and therefore logistical barrier. My appropriation request will be used to build a new EOC with additional space 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
571 

and necessary technology to enable emergency personnel more effective management capability to address a broad range of possible 

emergency incidents throughout the Twin Cities. 

The Twin Cities contains the nation’s twelfth largest regional 

economy, and it includes a concentration of critical infrastructure 

and key resources and, most importantly, boasts a regional population of approximately three million people. 

The new EOC is consistent with and supported in the Minnesota 

Homeland Security strategy, the Twin Cities Urban Area Security 

Initiative strategy and the Minnesota State Preparedness Report. 

The final design for the new EOC has been completed, and approximately $5.6 million in local funds have been identified for the 

project. 

The operating and maintenance budget has been developed and 

will be secured with city general fund dollars. The federal appropriations request of $1 million would permit completion of construction by spring of 2010, about a year from now. 

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I want to thank the entire committee, along with the Ranking Member, for the time and consideration of this important request. Thank you very much. 

[The information follows:] 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
572 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 899 here 50121B.153
573 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 900 here 50121B.154
574 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Ellison. We appreciate that testimony. 

I have no questions. Do you, Mr. Rogers? 

Mr. ROGERS. No questions. 

Mr. ELLISON. Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you very much. 

Mr. ELLISON. Have a fine day. 

Mr. PRICE. We will next call to our witness table Representative 

Deborah Halvorson from Illinois, one of our new Members. Ms. 

Halvorson, please proceed. 

THURSDAY, APRIL 23, 2009. 

MEMBER REQUESTS 

WITNESS 

HON. DEBBIE HALVORSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM 

THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Ms. HALVORSON. Thank you, Chairman Price, Ranking Member 

Rogers and Members of the committee. Thank you so much for allowing me to testify today on behalf of my constituents in the 11th 

Congressional District of Illinois. I come before you today to ask you for consideration of a $5 million appropriation for the Central Elementary School in Ottawa, Illinois, for predisaster mitigation. On September 15, 2008, the remainder of Hurricane Ike swept through Illinois, causing severe 

storms and some of the worst flooding my state had ever seen in 

decades. 

First of all, my district was very much affected. Particularly in 

the historic city of Ottawa they saw severe damage. Because of the 

storm, Ottawa residents were evacuated from nursing homes, roads 

were deemed to be unsafe, falling trees caused further damage, and 

with destruction throughout the area Ottawa’s Central Elementary 

School was hit particularly hard and experienced a great deal of 

damage. Central Elementary School houses over 400 fifth and sixth 

grade students. 

The flooding caused two significant and devastating effects on 

the school, which has prevented students from being able to return 

to the classroom. First, water damage virtually destroyed the 

school, making it unsafe environmentally for the children. Second, 

asbestos was found inside the school building and the soil surrounding the building. 

So for the time being, church basements and mobile classrooms 

throughout the Ottawa community are serving as classrooms for 

the 400 students, and, as you can imagine, the logistics involved 

in providing ongoing education has presented numerous challenges 

on multiple levels. 

Local officials have been placed in difficult positions of having to 

find quick solutions for a very expensive problem. The school board 

has decided that the best option at this point is to take the entire 

school and put them in an abandoned WalMart for the next school 

year until they can find a permanent solution. 

The simple fact is that the small community of Ottawa is unable 

to assume the full financial burden of making sure that the stuVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:01 Jul 21, 2009 Jkt 050121 PO 00000 Frm 00574 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\50121P2.XXX 50121P2

CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
575 

dents have a location to attend school. The specific amount of 

money that the school will receive from FEMA is unclear at this 

point, but it is unlikely that these funds will be adequate for the 

students to return to the school. 

There is a lot of work that needs to take place before we can get 

our fifth and sixth graders back to a proper classroom to start 

learning again. We need to make sure that the school is structurally safe, free from toxic materials and that necessary precautions are taken to prevent substantial flood damage in the future. Rebuilding the school in the current location poses a risk to 

flooding again. 

An appropriation of any amount will help provide the critical financial resources needed to either rebuild the school in a location 

outside the flood plain or rebuild on existing location just somehow 

to mitigate the risk of future flooding. 

So I am grateful to the members of our community that have 

helped in every way to help the children of Central Elementary 

School continue their education in these challenging times. The 

church basements have been converted to classrooms. Parents have 

volunteered their time and energy and school employees have 

worked tirelessly, but I ask please that this committee consider 

funding for Central Elementary School. 

Fifth and sixth graders need help, and this is not the time in 

their life that they should go from church basements to an abandoned WalMart for their schooling. 

I really appreciate your time, Chairman Price and Ranking Member Rogers, to help us in this needy time. 

[The information follows:] 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
576 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 906 here 50121B.155
577 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 907 here 50121B.156
578 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you very much. Let me just ask you briefly to 

comment on your current dealings with FEMA. You do have a declaration—— 

Ms. HALVORSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PRICE [continuing]. And there is a possible eligibility there. 

What do you understand that situation to be? 

Ms. HALVORSON. Well, unfortunately we are still working with 

them. They were told in the beginning that the money that they 

would get could help them relocate. 

Now they have been told that the money will only be to fix the 

school they are in. However, it is minimal. It will not come near 

the cost to fix the school, and the school will have to be left in the 

place it is at. It is in a floodplain where it will flood over and over 

again. 

So we need whatever help we can get to mitigate the fact that 

we do not want it to still be structurally unsound and so we need 

whatever help we can to mitigate the process to make it safe from 

this to happen again. The parents are scared to put their fifth 

graders and sixth graders back in a situation where this could happen again over and over again. 

Mr. PRICE. Well, we will certainly give this consideration. We understand very readily the challenge you are facing here and the 

need to get this school back in business in a safer way, a way that 

will resist future damage. We will have to see—— 

Ms. HALVORSON. Right. 

Mr. PRICE [continuing]. What the fit is between this and the kind 

of categories of funding that we have available. 

Mr. Rogers. 

Mr. ROGERS. No questions. 

Mr. PRICE. No questions. So thank you very much, Ms. 

Halvorson. 

Ms. HALVORSON. And thank you both very much. We are just 

looking for every avenue possible to help these children. 

Mr. PRICE. We understand. Thank you. 

Ms. HALVORSON. Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. So we will next call Congressman Cuellar. Welcome. 

Mr. CUELLER. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Rogers. 

Mr. PRICE. Congressman, we are glad to have you. We ask you 

to summarize your remarks within five minutes, and we will put 

your full statement in the record. 

THURSDAY, APRIL 23, 2009. 

MEMBER REQUESTS 

WITNESS 

HON. HENRY CUELLAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 

STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. CUELLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I appreciate the work that you all do in this committee. As you know, I 

chair one of the subcommittees in the Homeland Security, so I appreciate what the Appropriations folks do here. 

I have a couple of requests here. I just want to talk about one. 

It has to do with an advance emergency response wireless network 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
579 

for the city of Hidalgo. This is a FEMA predisaster mitigation account in the amount of $500,000. Basically what we are asking 

here, Mr. Chairman, is to create a wireless broadband network to 

provide public alert and warning communications. 

One of the things that we have seen down there on the border, 

Mr. Chairman, is the fact that we have the situation of what is 

happening across the river, number one, the situation with the 

drug cartels across the river. At the same time, being on the river 

in that particular area we have put in some money for levees to 

control the flooding. There was a huge flooding there back about 

20, 30 years ago. 

So what this will allow is to have a wireless broadband network 

for alert and warning communications, and this is something that 

I would ask you to consider. I have some other requests, but I 

know you all are very busy, and the rest of the testimony is there. 

I just wanted to bring this up at this time. 

[The information follows:] 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
580 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 913 here 50121B.157
581 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 914 here 50121B.158
582 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 915 here 50121B.159
583 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 916 here 50121B.160
584 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 917 here 50121B.161
585 

Mr. PRICE. All right. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Rogers, do you have any questions? 

Mr. ROGERS. No questions. 

Mr. PRICE. All right. We appreciate your appearing. 

Mr. CUELLER. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. PRICE. And we will give due consideration to your request. 

Mr. CUELLER. Thank you for your time. 

Mr. PRICE. We had one additional witness scheduled, but I do not 

believe he is on the scene. All right. 

VOICE. He is here, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. All right. Good. Good. Our colleague, Rush Holt from 

New Jersey arriving, just in the nick of time. 

Rush, we welcome you here. We ask that you give us a five 

minute oral summary of your statement. We will put whatever you 

want in the record. 

THURSDAY, APRIL 23, 2009. 

MEMBER REQUESTS 

WITNESS 

HON. RUSH D. HOLT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 

STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Mr. HOLT. I hope I can keep it to less than that. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman, Mr. Rogers and the committee. Thanks for the opportunity to testify on the fiscal 2010 Homeland Security appropriations. 

As I have already provided the subcommittee with information, 

I have requests for some specific projects in Old Bridge, Shrewsbury, West Windsor Township and Trenton, and I will not revisit 

those requests right now. I would like to talk about a couple of programmatic matters. 

As you may know, I have a programmatic funding request regarding the Commercial Equipment Direct Assistance Program, the 

so-called CEDAP. CEDAP fills a critical role in helping local law 

enforcement and first responders by providing qualified applicants 

with the means to buy commercially available equipment that can 

be used to make our community safe. 

Since its inception in 2005, CEDAP funding has been reduced from $50 million to its current low in fiscal year 2009 of $8 million. 

During 2008, more than 3,500 applications were approved for funding. However, based upon the availability of funds only 1,000 jurisdictions were ultimately served by the program. Twenty-five hundred approved applications were placed on the 2009 CEDAP list. 

In September 2008, then Senator Biden introduced the Homeland Security Law Enforcement Improvements Act, which called for 

allocating not less than $75 million for the CEDAP program for fiscal years 2009 and 2010, and I think this would be an appropriate 

funding level so I request that you take a look at the CEDAP funding and consider an increase to something on the order of $75 million. 

Second, I would like to bring to the committee’s attention a situation at Amtrak that I believe represents a shortcoming in safety 

preparations and effective counterterrorism response. 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
586 

Earlier this year I was made aware of the existence and activities of the Amtrak’s Office of Security Strategy and Special Operations. This element, which does not answer to the leadership of 

the existing Amtrak Police Department, has created SWAT-like 

units and intelligence liaison relationships with our intelligence 

agencies and conducted hostage rescue training exercises, all without, as far as I can tell, integrating its activities within the existing 

Amtrak Police Department’s chain of command. 

Police union officials have visited me and talked about training 

exercises that have been conducted without notifying, for example, 

either the Washington Metropolitan Police Department or the FBI 

Joint Terrorism Task Force in Washington. This created something 

of a scene. 

This OSSSO entity has, according to its own officials, received 

millions of dollars of rail security funding approved by Congress, 

and when they met with me earlier they pressed for still more. I 

am deeply concerned about this entity’s activities and the clear disconnect within Amtrak over who is in charge of rail security in the 

northeast corridor and elsewhere in the Amtrak system. 

So I ask the committee to conduct a probing look at this, at the 

organization and its relationship with the Amtrak Police Department, and give some thought to what measures Amtrak should 

take either on its own or with congressional direction to ensure 

that there is a coherent, unified organization looking at rail security. 

I appreciate the committee’s time and attention on these matters, 

and I would be happy to answer any questions. 

[The information follows:] 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
587 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 923 here 50121B.162
588 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 924 here 50121B.163
589 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 925 here 50121B.164
590 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 926 here 50121B.165
591 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 927 here 50121B.166
592 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 928 here 50121B.167
593 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 929 here 50121B.168
594 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 930 here 50121B.169
595 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. We do appreciate you coming forth and 

addressing these policy matters, particularly this latter concern, 

which I agree does warrant our attention as we prepare the bill, 

so thank you for flagging this matter this morning. 

Mr. Rogers, do you have any questions? 

Mr. ROGERS. Only to comment briefly. I appreciate your bringing 

to our attention the CEDAP request. That is a popular thing in my 

part of Kentucky. Of course, we will give that due consideration, 

but I do appreciate your highlighting that aspect. Thank you. 

Mr. HOLT. Thank you. If I may just say for the record so that 

it is clear to others, CEDAP gives a preapproved list that makes 

it easier for small organizations without large procurement departments to choose approved items and get on with it. 

Mr. ROGERS. Commercial Equipment Direct Assistance Program, 

and that is a proper name. 

Mr. HOLT. Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you very much. 

Mr. HOLT. Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. With that, we thank all of our witnesses, and the 

Subcommittee is adjourned. 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
596 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 932 here 50121B.170
597 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 933 here 50121B.171

CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
(599) 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 934 here 50121B.172
600 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 935 here 50121B.173
601 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 936 here 50121B.174
602 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 937 here 50121B.175
603 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 938 here 50121B.176
604 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 939 here 50121B.177
605 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 940 here 50121B.178
606 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 941 here 50121B.179
607 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 942 here 50121B.180
608 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 943 here 50121B.181
609 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 944 here 50121B.182
610 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 945 here 50121B.183
611 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 946 here 50121B.184
612 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 947 here 50121B.185
613 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 948 here 50121B.186
614 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 949 here 50121B.187
615 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 950 here 50121B.188
616 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 951 here 50121B.189
617 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 952 here 50121B.190
618 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 953 here 50121B.191
619 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 954 here 50121B.192
620 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 955 here 50121B.193
621 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 956 here 50121B.194
622 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 957 here 50121B.195
623 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 958 here 50121B.196
624 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 959 here 50121B.197
625 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 960 here 50121B.198
626 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 961 here 50121B.199
627 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 962 here 50121B.200
628 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 963 here 50121B.201
629 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 964 here 50121B.202
630 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 965 here 50121B.203
631 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 966 here 50121B.204
632 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 967 here 50121B.205
633 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 968 here 50121B.206
634 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 969 here 50121B.207
635 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 970 here 50121B.208
636 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 971 here 50121B.209
637 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 972 here 50121B.210
638 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 973 here 50121B.211
639 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 974 here 50121B.212
640 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 975 here 50121B.213
641 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 976 here 50121B.214
642 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 977 here 50121B.215
643 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 978 here 50121B.216
644 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 979 here 50121B.217
645 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 980 here 50121B.218
646 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 981 here 50121B.219
647 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 982 here 50121B.220
648 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 983 here 50121B.221
649 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 984 here 50121B.222
650 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 985 here 50121B.223
651 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 986 here 50121B.224
652 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 987 here 50121B.225
653 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 988 here 50121B.226
654 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 989 here 50121B.227
655 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 990 here 50121B.228
656 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 991 here 50121B.229
657 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 992 here 50121B.230
658 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 993 here 50121B.231
659 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 994 here 50121B.232
660 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 995 here 50121B.233
661 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 996 here 50121B.234
662 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 997 here 50121B.235
663 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 998 here 50121B.236
664 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 999/1100 here 50121B.237
(i) 

W I T N E S S E S 

Page 

Ashley, W. R ............................................................................................................... 1, 95 

Bastian, Anthony ..................................................................................................... 580 

Buswell, Bradley ...................................................................................................... 427 

Cuellar, Hon. Henry............................................................................................. 559, 568 

Decker, Russell ........................................................................................................ 604 

Donlon, Thomas ....................................................................................................... 652 

Dragani, Nancy ........................................................................................................ 629 

Eckles, Jack .............................................................................................................. 1 

Ellison, Hon. Keith............................................................................................... 559, 560 

Halvorson, Hon. Debbie....................................................................................... 559, 564 

Holt, Hon. R. D..................................................................................................... 559, 575 

Hornberger, Jack ..................................................................................................... 582 

Iwan, G. R ................................................................................................................ 649 

Kelley, C. M .............................................................................................................. 622 

Kraninger, Kathleen ................................................................................................ 347 

McHugh, Hon. J. M ................................................................................................. 586 

Millar, W. M ............................................................................................................. 590 

Miller, R. C ............................................................................................................... 581

Mocny, Bob ............................................................................................................... 347 

Morange, Bill ............................................................................................................ 1 

Perkins, Douglas ...................................................................................................... 583 

Romanowich, J. F .................................................................................................... 584 

Rossides, Gale .......................................................................................................... 281 

Sammon, John............................................................................................................ 1, 95 

Schue, Charles ......................................................................................................... 598 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
(iii) 

I N D E X 

SECURING THE NATION’S RAIL AND TRANSIT SYSTEMS, PART 1 

Page 

Opening Statement of Chairman Price .................................................................. 1 

Opening Statement of Ranking Member Rogers ................................................... 7 

Opening Statement of John Sammon, Assistant Administrator for Transportation Sector Network Management ................................................................... 12 

Opening Statement of W. Ross Ashley, Assistant Administrator for Grant 

Programs ............................................................................................................... 20 

Opening Statement of Bill Morange, Deputy Executive Director and Director 

of Security, New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority ....................... 34 

Opening Statement of Jack Eckles, Deputy Executive Officer for System 

Safety and Security, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority ................................................................................................................... 44 

Award and Funding Delays .................................................................................... 58 

State Administrative Agent Issue .......................................................................... 60 

Drawdown of Funds ................................................................................................. 61 

Historic Preservation Requirements ...................................................................... 61 

TSA Role ................................................................................................................... 62 

TSA Modifications to Grant Language .................................................................. 62 

Security Rankings .................................................................................................... 62 

Interaction with the Transit Community .............................................................. 62 

Funding Availability ................................................................................................ 64 

2006 Funding Drawdown ........................................................................................ 65 

Approval of the 2006 Budget .................................................................................. 67 

Process Improvements ............................................................................................. 67 

Joint Administration by FEMA and TSA .............................................................. 67 

Tier One Process ...................................................................................................... 67 

Cash Flow Report .................................................................................................... 68 

METRA Request ...................................................................................................... 68 

Two Agencies in Charge .......................................................................................... 69 

Applications Process ................................................................................................ 69 

FEMA Fiduciary Responsibility ............................................................................. 69 

Expedite Grant Process ........................................................................................... 70 

Report Requirement ................................................................................................ 70 

Importance of Funding ............................................................................................ 71 

Advice on Streamlining the Process ....................................................................... 73 

Report Clarification ................................................................................................. 76 

9/11 Act Provisions .................................................................................................. 77 

Agency Performance Assessment ........................................................................... 77 

SECURING THE NATION’S RAIL AND TRANSIT SYSTEMS, PART 2 

Opening Statement of Chairman Price .................................................................. 95 

Opening Statement of Ranking Member Rogers ................................................... 100 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
Page

iv 

Opening Statement of John Sammon, Assistant Administrator for Transportation Sector Network Management ................................................................... 103 

Opening Statement of W. Ross Ashley, Assistant Administrator for Grant 

Programs ............................................................................................................... 104 

Approval of Projects Before Award and Backlog ................................................... 111 

TSA Approval of Backlog Projects .......................................................................... 113 

Interim Report and Final Report ........................................................................... 114 

Report: Transit and Rail Grant Programs ............................................................. 115 

Funds for FY 2010 ................................................................................................... 138 

Unspent Funds ......................................................................................................... 138 

Congressional Direction to Accelerate Efforts ....................................................... 140 

Obligation of Funds ................................................................................................. 140 

Acceleration of Project Approval ............................................................................ 141 

Funding for FY 2010 ............................................................................................... 142 

Meeting with Grantees on Expenditures ........................................................... 142, 144 

Rail Transit Security ............................................................................................... 143 

Delays in Drawdown of Funds ................................................................................ 144 

Communication with Grantees ............................................................................... 145 

FEMA’s Risk Formula ............................................................................................. 146 

Draw-Down Figures for New York ......................................................................... 146 

Reducing Appropriations ......................................................................................... 147 

Funding Priorities .................................................................................................... 147 

Testing and Deploying Screening Equipment ....................................................... 148 

Grant Program Administration .............................................................................. 149 

Questions for the Record Submitted by Chairman David Price to John 

Sammon ................................................................................................................ 153 

Transit and Passenger Rail Grants ................................................................ 153 

Working with the Department of Transportation .......................................... 155 

Surface Transportation Inspectors .................................................................. 157 

Visible Intermodal Protection and Response Teams ..................................... 160 

Ability of Transit Agencies to Meet Security Requirements ......................... 166 

Secretarial Action Directives ........................................................................... 167 

Regional Transit Security Working Groups ................................................... 168 

9/11 Commission Act ........................................................................................ 169 

Canine Teams ................................................................................................... 172 

Toxic Inhalation Hazard .................................................................................. 173 

Research Programs Related to Surface Transportation Security ................. 174 

Management ..................................................................................................... 175 

Questions for the Record Submitted by Chairman David Price to W. Ross 

Ashley .................................................................................................................... 260 

Transit and Passenger Rail Grant Funding ................................................... 260 

Working with the Department of Transportation .......................................... 262 

Secretarial Action Directives ........................................................................... 263 

Questions for the Record Submitted by the Honorable Nita Lowey to W. 

Ross Ashley ........................................................................................................... 264 

Grant Program Expenditures .......................................................................... 264 

Transit Grants Allocation Methodology .......................................................... 264 

Questions for the Record Submitted by the Honorable Nita Lowey to John 

Sammon ................................................................................................................ 265 

Grant Program Expenditures .......................................................................... 265 

Amtrak Security ............................................................................................... 265 

Questions for the Record Submitted by the Honorable Lucille Roybal-Allard 

to John Sammon .................................................................................................. 266 

Mismanagement of the Transit Security Grant Program ............................. 266 

Allocation of TSA Resources to Safeguard Mass Transit .............................. 268 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
Page

v 

Questions for the Record Submitted by the Honorable Lucille Roybal-Allard 

to John Sammon —Continued 

Training for Transit, Rail and Bus Workers .................................................. 268 

Questions for the Record Submitted by Ranking Member Rogers to W. Ross 

Ashley .................................................................................................................... 270 

TSA Security Assessment of Largest Mass Transit and Rail Agencies ....... 270 

Anticipated Number of Additional VIPR Teams ............................................ 270 

Recent DHS IG Report on Surface Inspectors ............................................... 271 

Surface Inspectors Role in Larger Surface Security Strategy ...................... 271 

TSA Pilot Program Within NYC Subway System ......................................... 272 

Questions for the Record Submitted by the Honorable Ken Calvert to John 

Sammon ................................................................................................................ 273 

Rail Car Tracking ............................................................................................. 273 

Questions for the Record Submitted by the Honorable Ken Calvert to Jack 

Eckles .................................................................................................................... 275 

Closed Circuit Television ................................................................................. 275 

Grant Guidance ................................................................................................ 275 

Questions for the Record Submitted by the Honorable Ken Calvert to Bill 

Morange ................................................................................................................ 277 

Grant Guidance ................................................................................................ 277 

IMPROVING THE EFFICIENCY OF THE AVIATION SECURITY SYSTEM 

Opening Statement of Chairman Price .................................................................. 281 

Opening Statement of Ranking Member Rogers ................................................... 285 

Opening Statement of Gale Rossides, Acting Administrator, Transportation 

Security Administration ...................................................................................... 289 

Air Cargo Screening Progress ................................................................................. 300 

Tamper-Proof Technology ....................................................................................... 301 

Air Cargo Chain of Custody .................................................................................... 301 

International Air Cargo Screening ......................................................................... 302 

Equipment for Inspection of Air Cargo .................................................................. 303 

Upgrade Security Equipment ................................................................................. 303 

Number of Screeners ............................................................................................... 306 

Secure Flight ............................................................................................................ 306 

Mass Transit Security Help .................................................................................... 307 

FEMA Problems ....................................................................................................... 308 

Focus on Air Transportation Versus Other Modes ............................................... 308 

Employee Screening ................................................................................................ 309 

Collective Bargaining for TSA Employees ............................................................. 310 

Bus Travel ................................................................................................................ 311 

TSA Bus Security Activities .................................................................................... 312 

Securing Uniforms and Badges .............................................................................. 313 

Security of Airport Workers .................................................................................... 313 

Large Aircraft Security Program ............................................................................ 314 

Questions for the Record Submitted by Chairman David Price to Gale 

Rossides ................................................................................................................. 317 

Air Cargo Security ............................................................................................ 317 

Checkpoint Technologies .................................................................................. 323 

Explosive Detection Systems (EDS) ................................................................ 327 

Maintenance and Utility Costs for Screening Technologies ......................... 329 

Transportation Security Officers ..................................................................... 331 

Aviation Regulation and Other Enforcement ................................................. 336 

Security at Foreign Repair Stations ............................................................... 337 

Federal Flight Deck Officer and Flight Crew Training ................................. 338 

Secure Flight ..................................................................................................... 339 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
Page

vi 

Questions for the Record Submitted by Chairman David Price to Gale 

Rossides—Continued 

Screening of Aviation Workers ........................................................................ 340 

Air Crew Screening .......................................................................................... 342 

9/11 Act Expenditure Plan ............................................................................... 343 

School Bus Security Assessments ................................................................... 344 

Transportation Security Support .................................................................... 344 

Reception and Representation ......................................................................... 347 

Bonuses ............................................................................................................. 347 

Travel ................................................................................................................ 348 

Unobligated Balances ....................................................................................... 349 

Questions for the Record Submitted by Ranking Member Rogers to Gale 

Rossides ................................................................................................................. 351 

Secure Flight ..................................................................................................... 351 

Large Aircraft Security Program .................................................................... 351 

Questions for the Record Submitted by the Honorable John Abney Culberson 

to Gale Rossides ................................................................................................... 352 

Canadian Bag Rescreening .............................................................................. 352 

Questions for the Record Submitted by the Honorable Ken Calvert to Gale 

Rossides ................................................................................................................. 353 

ARRA Funding for John Wayne Airport ........................................................ 353 

Biometric Access Controls ................................................................................ 353 

Installation of New Technology at Airports ................................................... 354 

Redundancy in TSA Regulatory System ......................................................... 354 

BIOMETRIC IDENTIFICATION 

Opening Statement of Chairman Price .................................................................. 356 

Opening Statement of Ranking Member Rogers ................................................... 360 

Opening Statement of Kathleen Kraninger, Deputy Assistant Director of Policy, DHS Screening Coordination Office ............................................................. 368 

Opening Statement of Bob Mocny, Director, United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology ..................................................................... 369 

Passports Issued to GAO Investigators ................................................................. 382 

Databases Managed by DHS .................................................................................. 383 

US–VISIT Identity Management Services ............................................................ 384 

Secure Communities ................................................................................................ 385 

US–VISIT Immigration Control or Inventory ....................................................... 385 

Exit Solution ............................................................................................................ 386 

DoD Biometrics ........................................................................................................ 387 

Exit System .............................................................................................................. 388 

Two-Print and Ten-Print Data Collection ............................................................. 389 

Biometric Storage System ....................................................................................... 389 

Pilot Projects ............................................................................................................ 390 

Border Crossing By Car and on Foot ..................................................................... 390 

Border Crossing Baggage Check ............................................................................ 392 

Visa Waiver Program .............................................................................................. 393 

Exit Strategy ............................................................................................................ 393 

Interaction with E-Verify Program ........................................................................ 394 

Biometric Identifier Attached to Social Security Card ......................................... 395 

Number of Individuals Processed Each Year ........................................................ 395 

Next Exit Pilot Program ......................................................................................... 396 

Eye Scan Technology ............................................................................................... 396 

Potential Impacts on RFID Enabled Documents .................................................. 397 

Pass Card for the Mexican Border ......................................................................... 398 

Accuracy Issues ........................................................................................................ 399 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
Page

vii 

Exit System Add to US–VISIT ............................................................................... 401 

Global Entry Program ............................................................................................. 403 

International Registered Travel Program ............................................................. 404 

Questions for the Record Submitted by Chairman David Price to Kathleen 

Kraninger and Bob Mocny ................................................................................... 405 

US–VISIT and Overstay Identification .......................................................... 405 

US–VISIT: Exit ................................................................................................. 406 

US–VISIT—Migration to 10-Print Standard ................................................. 408 

US–VISIT Governance ..................................................................................... 410 

Unique Identity ................................................................................................ 411 

US–VISIT Performance .................................................................................... 412 

US–VISIT Staffing ........................................................................................... 412 

US–VISIT Cybersecurity ................................................................................. 413 

Enrollment ........................................................................................................ 413 

DHS Biometrics Technology ............................................................................ 414 

Enumerator ....................................................................................................... 417 

Effectiveness ..................................................................................................... 418 

Impact on Travel and Trade ............................................................................ 419 

Proper Use of Data ........................................................................................... 420 

Persistence of Data Presented by Individuals ................................................ 421 

IDENT/BSS ....................................................................................................... 422 

State Department Databases and DHS .......................................................... 422 

DoD Databases and DHS and HSPD 6 .......................................................... 423 

HSPD 24 ............................................................................................................ 423 

HSPD 12 ............................................................................................................ 428 

Airport Credentialing and Biometrics ............................................................ 429 

Global Entry ...................................................................................................... 431 

Registered Traveler .......................................................................................... 432 

Questions for the Record submitted by Ranking Member Rogers to Kathleen 

Kraninger and Bob Mocny ................................................................................... 433 

TWIC ................................................................................................................. 433 

Screening Coordination .................................................................................... 433 

Screening Redundancy with TWIC and HAZMAT ........................................ 434 

DEVELOPING AND TRANSITIONING HOMELAND SECURITY 

RESEARCH PRODUCTS INTO USE 

Opening Statement of Chairman Price .................................................................. 436 

Opening Statement of Ranking of Member Rogers .............................................. 441 

Opening Statement of Bradley Buswell, Acting Undersecretary for Science 

and Technology, Department of Homeland Security ......................................... 446 

Resilient Electric Grid ............................................................................................. 483 

Engage the Private Sector ...................................................................................... 485 

Non-Flammable Gasoline and Levee Break Fixes ................................................ 488 

Vehicle-Borne Improvised Explosive Devices ........................................................ 488 

List of Capability Needs .......................................................................................... 489 

Prioritization of S&T Efforts .................................................................................. 490 

Security of Capability Information ......................................................................... 490 

California Homeland Security Consortium ........................................................... 491 

Liquid Detection Efforts .......................................................................................... 492 

Private Sector Involvement ..................................................................................... 493 

Unexpended Funds .................................................................................................. 494 

Resilient Grid Project Cyber Vulnerabilities ......................................................... 496 

Domain Name Security ........................................................................................... 496 

NBAF Safety on Mainland ...................................................................................... 497 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
Page

viii 

Information Availability .......................................................................................... 498 

Container Security Devices ..................................................................................... 499 

Strategic Plans ......................................................................................................... 500 

Cyber Intrusions ...................................................................................................... 501 

Foliage-Penetrating Radar ...................................................................................... 502 

Questions for the Record Submitted by Chairman David Price to Bradley 

Buswell .................................................................................................................. 504 

BioWatch ........................................................................................................... 504 

Regional Biocontainment Laboratories ........................................................... 508 

Chemical Programs .......................................................................................... 508 

Counter MANPADS .......................................................................................... 509 

Air Cargo ........................................................................................................... 510 

The Future Attribute Screening Technology (FAST) ..................................... 512 

Container and Advanced Container Security Devices ................................... 512 

Supply Chain Architecture Project ................................................................. 513 

Hybrid Composite Container ........................................................................... 513 

Technology Clearing House ............................................................................. 514 

Inclusion of Stakeholders ................................................................................. 519 

Border Inspection Technology Projects ........................................................... 526 

International Agreements ................................................................................ 526 

Basic Research .................................................................................................. 527 

Centers of Excellence ....................................................................................... 529 

First Responders ............................................................................................... 532 

Demonstration and Pilot Programs ................................................................ 533 

National Bio- and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF) .......................................... 541 

Test & Evaluation and Standards .................................................................. 545 

Management ..................................................................................................... 546 

Contracts ........................................................................................................... 559 

Questions for the Record Submitted by Ranking Member Rogers to Bradley 

Buswell .................................................................................................................. 564 

Container Security Device ............................................................................... 564 

Counter IEDs .................................................................................................... 564 

Screening Redundancy with TWIC and HAZMAT ........................................ 434 

MEMBERS REQUESTS HEARING DAY 

Opening Statement of Chairman Price .................................................................. 568 

Opening Statement of the Honorable Keith Ellison ............................................. 569 

Opening Statement of the Honorable Debbie Halvorson ..................................... 573 

Opening Statement of the Honorable Henry Cuellar ........................................... 577 

Opening Statement of the Honorable Rush D. Holt ............................................. 584 

Testimony of the Honorable John M. McHugh ..................................................... 585 

OUTSIDE WITNESS TESTIMONY 

American Public Transportation Association ........................................................ 599 

UrsaNav ................................................................................................................... 607 

International Association of Emergency Managers .............................................. 613 

Fleet Reserve Association ....................................................................................... 619 

National Congress of American Indians ................................................................ 628 

National Treasury Employees Union ..................................................................... 631 

National Emergency Management Association ..................................................... 638 

National Environmental Services Center .............................................................. 658 

New York State Office of Homeland Security ....................................................... 661 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING