<DOC>
[DOCID: f:78489.wais]
S. Hrg. 107-826
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELAT-
ED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
on
H.R. 5559/S. 2808
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND
RELATED AGENCIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2003, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES
__________
Department of Transportation
Nondepartmental witnesses
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
senate
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
78-489 WASHINGTON : 2003
___________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia, Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii TED STEVENS, Alaska
ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
TOM HARKIN, Iowa PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
HARRY REID, Nevada MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin CONRAD BURNS, Montana
PATTY MURRAY, Washington RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota LARRY CRAIG, Idaho
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
JACK REED, Rhode Island MIKE DeWINE, Ohio
Terrence E. Sauvain, Staff Director
Charles Kieffer, Deputy Staff Director
Steven J. Cortese, Minority Staff Director
Lisa Sutherland, Minority Deputy Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Transportation and Related Agencies
PATTY MURRAY, Washington, Chairman
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
HARRY REID, Nevada CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
TED STEVENS, Alaska (ex officio)
Professional Staff
Peter Rogoff
Kate Hallahan
Wally Burnett (Minority)
Paul Doerrer (Minority)
Administrative Support
Angela Lee
C O N T E N T S
----------
Thursday, February 7, 2002
Page
Department of Transportation..................................... 1
Wednesday, February 14, 2002
Department of Transportation: U.S. Coast Guard................... 45
Thursday, March 21, 2002
Department of Transportation: Security Challenges for
Transportation of Cargo........................................ 93
Tuesday, April 16, 2002
Department of Transportation: Federal Aviation Administration.... 133
Nondepartmental witnesses........................................ 183
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2003
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2002
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:02 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Patty Murray (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Murray, Byrd, Kohl, Shelby, Specter,
Bond, and Bennett.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL JACKSON, DEPUTY SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
ACCOMPANIED BY HON. JOHN MAGAW, UNDER SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION FOR
SECURITY
opening statement of senator patty murray
Senator Murray. The subcommittee will come to order. This
will be the first of several subcommittee hearings on the
Transportation budget for fiscal year 2003. As I review this
budget, it is clear to me that our subcommittee will face
extraordinary challenges this coming year, challenges that may
make the Mexican truck issue seem easy by comparison.
In his State of the Union message, President Bush said his
economic security plan can be summed up in one word, jobs, but
his Transportation budget proposals have cut billions of
dollars in infrastructure spending. This is the single largest
proposed cut across the entire Government, and it threatens to
eliminate over 350,000 jobs across the country.
During a hearing with OMB Director Mitch Daniels, held 2
days ago, I questioned the wisdom of this proposal. Director
Daniels was quick to point out that in making this request, the
Administration was only following the requirements of the TEA-
21 law. What Mr. Daniels failed to say is that throughout his
budget proposal, there are hundreds of examples where the
Administration is asking us to ignore existing law, or to
change the law.
Just within the Transportation budget, we are asked to
ignore current law and to adopt measures to throw several
communities out of the Essential Air Service Program. We are
asked to ignore the TEA-21 law and transfer formula funds to
the President's New Freedom Initiative. We are asked to ignore
current law and impose new user fees on railroads, shipping
companies, and transporters of hazardous materials. So I expect
that one of the issues we will pursue this morning is why the
Administration supports current law when it requires billion-
dollar cuts in infrastructure investment, but ignores current
law in so many other places.
The proposed slashing of highway spending is just one
challenge we are going to face. The Department of
Transportation is currently establishing a brand-new agency,
the Transportation Security Administration, known as TSA. It is
clear from September 11 that we need to improve security in all
of our transportation modes. I support the new Under Secretary
in his major task of securing our various modes of
transportation against threats of attack.
To date, the TSA has been funded largely through user fees,
but for fiscal year 2003 the Administration is requesting that
direct appropriations for this agency grow from less than $95
million to $2.2 billion. Dramatic increases are also requested
for the Coast Guard's efforts in the area of homeland defense,
and as I said earlier, the President's budget also recommends
several controversial transportation user fees to partially
offset the cost of a portion of these increases.
Finally, the President's budget proposes to freeze
subsidies for Amtrak. At the same time, we are told that
Amtrak's president will testify that unless Amtrak gets a 130-
percent increase in funding this year, the majority of States
across the Nation will lose passenger rail service.
So this is a challenging year. I would just ask my
colleagues to keep these challenges in mind as we work on
developing a budget for the coming year. If this subcommittee
wants to fully fund the request for security while avoiding
deep cuts in highway infrastructure, the elimination of
passenger rail service, and the imposition of new user fees,
then a budget that holds us to the President's requested level
will not do the job.
In order to better acquaint us with the President's
proposal, we are joined this morning by Deputy Secretary
Michael Jackson. As many of you know, Secretary Mineta is
recuperating from hip replacement surgery, and I know I speak
on behalf of the entire subcommittee in wishing the Secretary a
speedy recovery. Given the central role of transportation
security in this budget request, I have also invited the new
Under Secretary of Transportation for Security, John Magaw, to
appear with Mr. Jackson.
We will also hold a hearing on cargo security with the
Administrators from the Federal Railroad Administration,
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Federal Highway
Administration, Maritime Administration, and the Coast Guard.
This is the third hearing that Mr. Magaw will participate
in just this week. Mr. Magaw, we do appreciate your stamina. I
understand that almost all of the discussion during the two
previous hearings focused on the huge challenge you face in the
area of aviation security. In just 11 days the TSA is expected
to take over the entire screening function at our Nation's
airports, and in just 10 months the TSA is expected to
implement a system to screen all checked baggage for
explosives.
I do not underestimate those critical challenges one bit,
but I do represent a State with one of the largest seaports in
the United States, where every day tons of cargo travels by
rail and by truck. I want to remind my colleagues that the new
Transportation Security Administration is responsible for
security in all of our transportation modes, and I think it is
not too soon to ask what progress is being made in those areas.
I appreciate that the TSA must focus on its near-term deadlines
in aviation, but if the new agency is not yet focusing on port
or rail or highway security, then we have to ask what is being
done in other parts of DOT.
To date, we have received no details on the TSA's budget
request for $4.8 billion for next year. Instead, we have
received only a seven-page narrative with no funding figures
for any individual security activity. As such, I think we will
need to spend some time this morning pursuing precisely what
Mr. Magaw believes he can and cannot achieve at that funding
level.
While we have many challenges ahead of us, this is
important work. Transportation is a key part of our economy.
Our transportation infrastructure affects our productivity and
our quality of life, and when we make investments in our
critical infrastructure, we are laying the foundation for our
future economic growth.
We welcome the challenges we face, and I look forward to
working with my colleagues to meet those challenges for the
benefit of the American people. With that, I recognize Senator
Bond for an opening statement.
statement of senator christopher s. bond
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and
welcome, Michael Jackson, John Magaw. We are delighted to have
you here, and given what the chair has outlined as the
tremendous responsibilities in your area, gentlemen, I wonder
how you can spend the time up here testifying on the Hill.
Perhaps we ought to get you to phone in your answers and let
you go back to work, because this is a huge, very important
challenge, and as the chair mentioned, it is not just airline
security.
Those of us who fly all the time experience airline
security efforts but the security of our ports, our rails, our
trucks--and I took Amtrak to New York and back on Monday, and
knowing what happened in the Baltimore Tunnel, we have an idea
of what can happen if a terrorist were to strike a rail asset,
so you have many challenges, and I will be interested to see
how you deal with all those challenges and hope that you have
the time to do them.
Senator Murray has outlined the major concerns that I think
all of us have about the adequacy of transportation funding. I
have great concerns about the shortfalls in highway dollars. I
was coauthor of the Highway Trust Fund, the realigned budget
authority provision in TEA-21. We wanted to make sure that
Highway Trust Fund dollars were spent only for Highway Trust
Fund purposes, and under the budget proposal, the sum
apparently has been reduced by $8.6 billion.
That comes to almost $159 million for Missouri. That costs
us directly about 6,600 jobs at a time when we cannot afford
the job loss, particularly when it is important in economic
security. As I have said in this Committee and elsewhere many
times, adequate funding for highways is not just a matter of
convenience or economic viability, it is a question of life and
death for people who are driving in Missouri on highways that
are not adequate for the traffic that they hold, so we are
going to be very interested in your proposals. I know there are
some legislative proposals. Another committee on which I serve
will be working on those, and we would welcome your comments on
those.
Two particular questions, Michael. I have had many
conversations with you about trying to find a fair resolution
for the disputes between the employees and the unions of the
former TWA and the American Airlines on how to integrate their
seniority lists to determine who may be furloughed, as
furloughs continue, unfortunately, because of a decline in
traffic.
The Secretary and you and I have had countless discussions.
My preference would be to solve this by mediation so all
parties would agree, but as a fallback, my still strong belief
is that the dispute, if it cannot be mediated, ought to be
submitted for binding arbitration under the Mohawk-Allegheny
decision. Indeed, the mechanics of the two lines are currently
in binding arbitration over this issue, and the reason we
continue to talk about it, it could be severely disruptive to
the overall passenger air transportation system and for the
wonderful, fine American Airlines. If the employees and the
pilots are in dispute, that is not going to help the provision
of service to all of us and is not in the interests of air
transportation.
Finally, the topic of Vanguard Airlines has been something
that Secretary Mineta, you and I have talked about a long time.
Vanguard has on two separate occasions applied for assistance
from the Federal loan program, and the ATSB has recently denied
approval of the application, citing Vanguard's inability to
repay the loan as the reason. It was my understanding when we
took part in the creation of this that the purpose of that fund
was to assist airlines that were profitable and were on a
profit mode prior to September 11, but otherwise could not
survive after September 11 without the assistance.
Now, Vanguard is very important to the Kansas area. It
provides critical value, with revenues, jobs, and service, and
we have heard people saying we need to keep these otherwise
viable airlines in operation, so I am going to be asking, since
apparently, as far as I know, America West is the only other
airline that has received assistance, with that fund, a large
fund meant to keep airlines in business, how come Vanguard is
not able to get that assistance.
So Madam Chair, I thank you for your indulgence, and look
forward to the question session.
Senator Murray. Thank you. Senator Bennett.
Senator Bennett. I have no opening statement, other than to
welcome our witnesses here. Thank you.
Senator Murray. Thank you very much. We have a vote called,
but I think I will go ahead with your opening statements, and
we will start with Mr. Jackson.
statement of deputy secretary michael p. jackson
Mr. Jackson. Thank you, Madam Chairman. We, too, understand
that there are many difficult issues to work through in the
transportation world this year, and we welcome this opportunity
to have this discussion today and, as we go through the year,
to work closely with you as we work through these important
issues.
On behalf of Secretary Mineta, I am pleased, to discuss our
2003 budget, and specifically to focus a little bit on the
Transportation Security Administration. I am pleased to be
joined today by John Magaw, but I am even more pleased to be
joined by him every morning as we work through the issues that
he is working on.
overview
President Bush is requesting $59 billion for the Department
of Transportation, which is an 8 percent increase over the 2002
budget, if the TEA-21 formula adjustments for highway were not
included. But they are included, and these required adjustments
mean that we have to tighten our belt and be very careful as we
work through the challenges that we have on the transportation
funding. Most DOT programs will, nonetheless, see an increase
in 2003.
In his State of the Union address last week, President Bush
said that his budget will support three preeminent goals for
America: winning the war both at home and abroad, protecting
our homeland, and reviving the economy. The DOT budget focuses
on delivering performance against these three objectives, and
it recognizes that we have these three preeminent challenges
this year to deal with and is committed to meeting them.
transportation security administration
The events of September 11 underscore the importance of
transportation, as you have said, Senator Murray, on homeland
security in particular, and our budget requests $8.8 billion
for homeland security.
The President's budget requests $4.8 billion for the
Transportation Security Administration. Honestly, we will have
to come back in the next few months and help unpack the details
of that budget. I will be happy to talk through how we see it
and how we arrived at this number, but we recognize that there
are several key decisions that will play out over the next
couple of months and drive the 2003 budget as we stand up the
Transportation Security Administration.
The $4.8 billion will be funded by a combination of direct
appropriations, with offsetting collections estimated in the
proposed budget at $2.2 billion.
TSA has been given an unprecedented task in standing up a
full Federal takeover of the airport security responsibility,
including all passenger baggage screening functions. By the
middle of this month, aviation security will become a direct
responsibility of the Federal Government, rather than the
airline industry. TSA has much to do, but we are prepared to
meet the task and to make it happen. Again, I would be happy,
along with Under Secretary Magaw to talk about the details of
how we plan to move forward with the TSA.
coast guard
The President's budget includes the largest increase in our
Nation's history for the Coast Guard. It provides $7.1 billion
in search and rescue enhancements and increased port security.
The President has proposed $500 million to fund the Coast
Guard's Deepwater project, which will replace our aging fleet
of boats, planes, helicopters, and cutters, with state-of-the-
art equipment. This committee has supported this procurement,
which will take place over several decades, and we start in
earnest with the work this year.
Our budget proposal also includes $90 million to improve
maritime safety. This initiative will modernize the maritime
``911'' system and eliminate existing radio coverage gaps along
our coast to enhance the Coast Guard's ability to conduct
search and rescue missions.
highway funding
The Department's mission is, of course, much more focused
on other priorities beyond the homeland security priorities
that are so pressing in this year. First is an issue on the
minds of many of us and one that the committee has raised this
morning--the required adjustment to Highway Trust Fund spending
in 2003. The reason for this, obviously, is embedded in the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). TEA-21
guaranteed that highway funding would be tied to Highway Trust
Fund tax receipts. It accomplishes this through a series of
annual adjustment mechanisms, as this committee knows.
As a result of our strong economy over the last 3 years, we
have enjoyed record funding for surface transportation, well
above the baseline forecasts in the initial authorization bill.
But because of the economy's slowdown in 2001, there was a drop
in tax receipts flowing into the Highway Trust Fund requiring a
downward adjustment.
The President's budget fully funds the guaranteed funding
level set in TEA-21. As we make plans to reauthorize TEA-21 in
2003, we will work with Congress to evaluate any type of
legislative mechanisms that could help to decrease the funding
volatility that we are seeing in this program. We want to
engage the Congress in a discussion of the volatility that we
have seen and the mechanisms that might diminish that
volatility.
safety funding
The Department's 2003 budget also offers several other
initiatives to support the country's air, land, and sea
transportation system. Safety remains the priority of DOT.
Nearly $8 billion of the President's request is dedicated to
improving transportation safety for all Americans. Aviation has
certainly been a major focus of that investment in safety. The
2003 budget for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
reflects the Administration's strong commitment in funding
safety efforts.
Recovering from the events of September 11, air traffic is
now beginning to grow again. We see that the capacity problems
we were worried about last spring and summer have not
disappeared. They will recur, and we must be prepared to
contend with them. The total FAA program budget request of $14
billion is 1.7 percent higher than 2002, when adjusted for
changes that migrate various parts of the FAA into the new
Transportation Security Administration. We are requesting $3.4
billion in our FAA 2003 budget for our airport improvement
activities.
The President's 2003 budget also requests $371 million for
activities of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration,
up 8 percent over 2002. I want to again thank this Committee
for helping us work through the NAFTA trucking issues. The
President is requesting $116 million for the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration to improve our southern border
safety enforcement and continue the deployment along the border
that we launched with this committee's strong work.
public and rail transportation
For 2003, the President is proposing a record $7.1 billion
for public transportation. The budget request includes funding
29 new starts, projects that will carry over 190 million riders
and save over 61 million hours in travel time.
federal transit administration
Within the 2003 Federal Transit Administration proposal,
$145 million is dedicated to the President's New Freedom
Initiative. This program will make transportation more
accessible for persons with disabilities. A competitive grants
program will make $100 million available for alternative
transportation services, and the remaining $45 million will go
to pilot projects that promote innovative approaches to
overcoming transportation barriers for persons with
disabilities.
The 2003 budget also includes a placeholder request for
Amtrak of $521 million, and we recognize it is as such.
Understanding Amtrak's precarious financial circumstances, we
must decide precisely what type of inter-city rail network we
need, what we can afford, and how we can sustain it over time.
The Administration is prepared and eager to engage with the
Congress in a discussion on this issue. Last summer, Secretary
Mineta called for an early reauthorization of Amtrak and inter-
city passenger rail issues, and we expect that this issue will
be a focus of subsequent and more detailed conversations with
the committee.
This is a strong 2003 budget supporting the President's
goals for air, land, and sea transportation. My prepared
remarks focus only on a few highlights, and the rest of the
Department obviously contributes to the core goals of the
Department.
To conclude, Secretary Mineta and I believe that the 2003
budget for DOT will clearly enhance homeland security, but also
manage to sustain the goals that are core to DOT's mission. We
know that it is a tough year financially, but we believe the
budget will help us do the job. We look forward to working with
the subcommittee and all members of the Senate as it considers
the President's 2003 budget. I will be happy to answer any
questions that you might have. We have a prepared text for
submission to the record with your permission.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael P. Jackson
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee: On behalf of
Secretary Mineta, I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss
the Department's budget request for fiscal year 2003 and, more
specifically, the budget for the Transportation Security
Administration--TSA. Joining me today is Mr. John Magaw, our Under
Secretary of Transportation for Security.
overview
President Bush is requesting $59 billion for the Department of
Transportation (DOT). This is an 8 percent increase over the 2002
budget, if TEA-21 formula adjustments for highways are excluded. With
those required adjustments, however, we are tightening our belts,
particularly on highway spending. Most DOT programs will nonetheless
see an increase in 2003.
In his State of the Union address last week, President Bush said
that his budget will support three preeminent goals for America:
winning the war--at home and abroad; protecting our homeland; and
reviving the economy.
Secretary Mineta testified before Congress last month about lessons
of September 11, about how our transportation system is critical to the
security of every American--and to the Nation's economy. DOT plays an
important role in meeting all three of the President's goals, and our
budget reflects that fact.
In 2003, we will continue our efforts of 2002 by focusing the
Department's resources in a significant way to meet President Bush's
three-part commitment. The Secretary and his entire team stand ready to
work with President Bush, Congress and the American people. We will
meet the President's goals.
homeland security--tsa and the coast guard
The events of September 11, 2001, underscore the importance of
transportation security as part of America's homeland security.
Protecting airports, seaports, bridges, highways, pipelines, passenger
and freight rails, and mass transit against the threat of terrorism is
imperative. In 2003, added emphasis on this mission will be reflected
in resources for personnel, technology and equipment to meet
transportation security challenges. This is most clearly evident in the
budgets of two DOT agencies: the Transportation Security Administration
and the Coast Guard. In total, DOT's 2003 budget requests $8.8 billion
for homeland security.
In November, President Bush signed the Aviation and Transportation
Security Act, establishing the TSA. While the initial focus of the TSA
will be in the area of aviation where deadlines are specified in law,
TSA will ultimately work to enhance security in all modes of
transportation.
The President's budget requests $4.8 billion in funding for the TSA
in 2003, an increase of $3.6 billion above the level of funds provided
directly to TSA in 2002 and $2.5 billion above the security-related
amounts appropriated to both TSA and the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) for TSA related activities. The $4.8 billion would
be funded through a combination of direct appropriations, offsetting
collections in the form of the passenger security fee of $2.50 and a
fee to be paid by airlines. The total for the offsetting collections is
estimated to be about $2.2 billion. Resource information for the
Federal Air Marshal program can be provided in a classified document or
briefing.
John Magaw--former Director of both the Secret Service and the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms--joined the DOT team to lead
the new TSA as Under Secretary of Transportation for Security. With
John, Secretary Mineta's team is working closely with the Office of
Homeland Security and with multiple Federal, State, local and private
partners in this vital work.
TSA's budget is presented in a service-oriented manner, rather than
being broken down based on types of costs, such as operating expenses,
capital costs, and research. These broad service areas are security
operations, law enforcement, intelligence, and security regulation
enforcement, and include headquarters and field resources with
administrative, support and management personnel.
For the first time, beginning on February 18, aviation security
will become a direct responsibility of the Federal Government rather
than the airline industry. There is much to do to make this transition,
and TSA is on track to make it happen.
TSA has been given an unprecedented task in standing up a full-
Federal takeover of much of airport security, including all passenger
and baggage screening functions. Our budget proposal includes funding
for security screeners, law enforcement officers, screening management
and Federal supervisors, as well as for baggage screening technology to
ensure that the Congress's mandate that all bags are screened is met.
We will also fund the development and acquisition of new security
technologies that will better enable us to perform the important
aviation security functions.
In addition to TSA, virtually every other part of the Department is
working to improve homeland security. The Coast Guard, the Maritime
Administration, and the maritime industry are working together to
enhance our maritime and port security efforts. This work is critical,
as 95 percent of America's overseas commerce travels through our
Nation's seaports.
Recently, President Bush spoke in Maine about the importance of the
Coast Guard in protecting homeland security--and he praised the
magnificent work of its men and women. The President's budget includes
the largest increase in spending for the Coast Guard in our Nation's
history. It provides $7.1 billion in search and rescue enhancements and
increased port security. Also included is a commercial navigation user
fee, to help pay for increased port security needs.
The President has proposed $500 million to fund the Coast Guard's
``Deepwater'' project. Deepwater will replace our aging fleet of boats,
planes, helicopters, and cutters with state-of-the-art equipment--
delivered over more than two decades.
Deepwater will rely upon a new performance-based approach to the
acquisition of major assets. This investment will increase the Coast
Guard's effectiveness in saving lives and assuring homeland security.
It will equip the Coast Guard to protect the environment and enforce
immigration, drug, and fishery laws at sea.
The Department's mission is, of course, focused on many other
important priorities.
highways
First is an issue that is on the minds of many of us--the required
adjustment to Highway Trust Fund spending in 2003. The reason for the
adjustment can be found in the law that sets highway funding--the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21).
TEA-21 guaranteed that highway funding would be tied to Highway
Trust Fund tax receipts. It accomplishes this through a series of
annual adjustment mechanisms. As a result of a strong economy, for the
past three years TEA-21 has provided record-level funding for surface
transportation--well above baseline levels forecast in the 1998
authorization.
Because of the economy's slowdown in 2001, there was a drop in tax
receipts flowing into the Highway Trust Fund. In 2003, highway
obligations will therefore be 29 percent below the 2002 level. Actual
spending, which typically lags obligations on these multi-year highway
projects, will fall nationally in 2003 by roughly 3 percent.
In a nutshell, spending for highways will be lower in 2003 based on
a formula set in law that adjusts spending to Trust Fund receipts. The
President's budget fully funds the guaranteed funding level set in TEA-
21. As we make plans to reauthorize TEA-21 in 2003, we will work with
Congress to evaluate legislative mechanisms that could decrease funding
volatility.
The Department's 2003 budget also offers several other initiatives
to support the country's air, land and sea transportation systems.
aviation and surface transportation safety
Safety remains a cornerstone priority at the DOT. Nearly $8 billion
of the President's request is dedicated to improving transportation
safety for all Americans.
In addition to homeland security and safety, improving mobility
while protecting the environment remains a focus of so much of our work
at DOT. In recent years, the United States has invested billions of
dollars in transportation in order to accomplish these multiple goals.
Aviation has certainly been a major focus for that investment. The
2003 budget request for the FAA reflects the Administration's strong
commitment to making air travel safer and more efficient.
Recovering from the events of September 11, air traffic is now
beginning to grow again. The FAA must continue its efforts to provide
for increased efficiency and capacity within our Nation's airspace.
The total FAA program budget request of $14 billion is 1.7 percent
higher than in 2002, when adjusted for changes in mission related to
the TSA. We are requesting $6 billion for operating and maintaining the
air traffic control system, $700 million for FAA's air traffic control
system modernization, and $290 million for safety related technologies
and systems to prevent runway incursions and other accidents.
We are requesting $3.4 billion in our FAA 2003 budget for airport
improvement activities.
Turning from aviation to surface transportation, here too the focus
on safety is at the heart of our work at DOT. Sadly, traffic crashes
claimed over 40,000 lives annually, accounting for over 90 percent of
transportation-related deaths. The Department's goal is to reduce
highway deaths through education, research and new technologies--and
rigorous enforcement of our traffic and safety laws.
To achieve our highway safety goals, the budget calls for $200
million for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's safety
research and information programs. It provides for $225 million in
grants to states for their highway safety programs.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has been
working to achieve the goal of reducing truck-related fatalities from
more than 5,000 in the year 2000 to less than 2,700 by the year 2010.
The President's 2003 budget requests $371 million for motor carrier
safety activities, 8 percent more than 2002. The budget provides $190
million to support continued research and enforcement of FMCSA's
interstate commercial carrier regulations. It includes $165 million for
Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program State grants.
I again want to thank you for supporting our commitment under the
North American Free Trade Agreement in DOT's 2002 Appropriations Act.
The President is requesting $116 million for FMCSA to improve our
southern border safety enforcement program. This will support the
comprehensive Federal and State safety enforcement presence at the
U.S./Mexico border that is being deployed this year.
public transportation and rail
Public transportation--transit, commuter rail and buses in urban,
suburban and rural areas of the country--reduces traffic congestion and
enhances mobility. For 2003, the President is proposing a record $7.2
billion for public transportation. The budget request includes funding
for 29 new starts--projects that will carry over 190 million riders and
save over 61 million hours in travel time.
Within the 2003 proposal for the Federal Transit Administration,
$145 million is dedicated to the President's New Freedom Initiative.
This program will make transportation more accessible for persons with
disabilities. A competitive grants program will make $100 million
available for alternative transportation services and the remaining $45
million will go toward pilot projects that promote innovative
approaches to overcoming transportation barriers for passengers with
disabilities.
The 2003 Budget also includes a placeholder request of $521 million
for Amtrak. Understanding Amtrak's precarious financial circumstances,
last summer Secretary Mineta called for passenger rail reauthorization
in 2002, in advance of the expiration of Amtrak's current
authorization. We must decide precisely what type of intercity rail
network we need, what we can afford, and how to sustain it over time.
On other rail matters, the President's budget supports beefing up
the safety program at the Federal Railroad Administration, recommending
$195 million for safety initiatives and rail research efforts.
other programs
The Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) oversees
the transportation of hazardous materials, including America's 2.1
million miles of gas and oil pipelines. The President's Budget includes
$64.5 million to hire new pipeline inspectors and to initiate a
research and development program for the safety of our energy
infrastructure.
RSPA's budget also includes $2.1 million for the Office of
Emergency Transportation's Crisis Management Center, which demonstrated
its critical importance to the Nation on September 11 as the
Department's intermodal communication center.
In addition to the previously mentioned Coast Guard budget, our
budget proposal includes a $90 million initiative to improve maritime
safety. This initiative will modernize the maritime ``911'' system and
eliminate existing radio coverage gaps along our coast and enhance the
Coast Guard's ability to find those in distress.
conclusion
All up, this is a strong fiscal year 2003 budget supporting the
President's goals for air, land and sea transportation. My prepared
remarks focus on only a part of the whole picture. Yet each
organization within DOT contributes indispensably to accomplishing the
DOT goals I have outlined.
To conclude, Secretary Mineta and I--along with his DOT leadership
team--believe that the President's 2003 budget for DOT will clearly
enhance homeland security--significantly. But more, it will improve
transportation safety, maintain America's critical transportation
infrastructure, increase transportation capacity, protect the
environment, and improve mobility. In short, it will do the job.
We look forward to working with this Subcommittee and all members
of the Senate as it considers President Bush's 2003 budget request.
AVIATION INCIDENT
Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Mr. Jackson.
Mr. Magaw, I understand you do not have an opening
statement but will be available for questions.
Mr. Magaw. That is right. I will be available for
questions, but I also believe my responsibility is to report an
incident to you this morning that you may not have heard of
yet, and I do not want to leave this hearing without telling
you about that incident. However, I can only give you partial
information because that is all I have right now. United 855,
en route Buenos Aires from Miami, had an incident occur early
this morning. The cockpit door was kicked by a passenger. The
panel, or the bottom portion of it, was damaged, but the door
held. The crew and others assaulted and injured the person. The
flight landed in Buenos Aires. They did not divert and go to a
different location.
The person, as I understand it, is now in custody but is
injured, maybe seriously injured, and is being treated. The
information about what was used to injure the individual varies
in four or five things, so I do not want to state what that is.
Actually, one of the things that they used to injure the
individual was a fire extinguisher, and that is about what I
have right now.
I did get the call a few minutes after the air traffic
control towers were notified. I got the call around 4:40 this
morning, and the plane did land safely around 8:00 a.m., in
Buenos Aires.
Senator Murray. Thank you, Mr. Magaw, and I am sure we will
have questions about that. I have a number of questions as well
about the budget. There is a vote in progress. Senator Shelby
has already voted, so I am going to let him make his opening
statement and do questions, and then I will be back in a
minute.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY
Senator Shelby. Thank you. Thank you very much. I am going
to welcome you--you have been welcomed by the chairman, but
welcome you to the hearing. I look forward to our discussions
this morning on the Department of Transportation's 2003 budget
request. Hopefully we will have an opportunity to look under
the hood of the budget request and to better frame what this
request means for the Department's multifaceted agenda.
While the Transportation budget request is fairly
straightforward, it does rely in a small part on some of the
same tried and rejected budget gimmicks such as new user fee
taxes. Although the Transportation budget request avoided the
wholesale reliance on new user fees taxes that characterized
the last Administration's submissions, somewhere the budget
gnomes just could not let go completely.
The request continues the proposal for $65 million in new
user fee taxes for rail safety inspection and a hazardous
materials safety program even though these proposals have been
submitted to Congress and dismissed for the past 5 or 6 years,
and the request resurrects a Coast Guard navigation fee for
$165 million that has also been rejected previously by the
Congress. I would be surprised if they fare any better this
year.
Although the hole in the budget created by the user fee
requests is smaller than in years past, even a small hole will
have to be made up somewhere. Because of the funding
distortions caused by special budgetary treatment for other
capital accounts, closing this gap will likely come at the
expense of those accounts that have the greatest difficulty
absorbing the shortfall, but the difficulties presented by the
user fee taxes budget gimmick pale in comparison to the $8\1/2\
billion cut in highways.
In the years past, I have contended that the special
budgetary treatment of the highway, transit, and aviation
capital accounts put pressure on FAA operations, Coast Guard
operations, and Amtrak subsidies. This year, the special
budgetary treatment for highways puts pressure on itself as
well as those other accounts. Clearly, restoring some level of
reason to the highway account will be the biggest issue that
the transportation budget will face in 2003.
I understand that the budget request complies strictly with
the law as articulated in TEA-21, but I had actually hoped for
a little more leadership on infrastructure investment than a
blind devotion to a flawed highway authorization act. I believe
that, because of the mechanically derived highway numbers, this
budget presents an enormous challenge for this Subcommittee;
namely, how to find the resources for a more responsible level
of highway infrastructure investment. That is by no means the
only challenge in this request, but it is undoubtedly the most
daunting from a budgetary resource perspective.
What the $8\1/2\ billion cut to the highway program
demonstrates to me is the folly of trying to set infrastructure
investment on automatic pilot and how flawed the TEA-21
legislation was in trying to match annual gas tax receipts to
the annual highway infrastructure appropriation. If the goal of
TEA-21 was to set the highway program on autopilot, then the
RABA adjustment this year caused what aviators refer to as
controlled flight into terrain.
Secretary Jackson, as you begin to formulate
reauthorization proposals for highways and transit, I hope and
trust that you will avoid mechanical approaches to establishing
highway obligation limitation levels. One, if the primary
argument for linking highway gas tax receipts to highway
spending levels was the need to provide State Departments of
Transportation with a stable and certain level of highway
investment, then this budget request shows how badly TEA-21
failed.
This request represents the largest swing in the highway
program in history. Such a swing would not have been possible
without the fact of accountability that comes from the TEA-21
autopilot. To illustrate just how counterproductive this
approach is, consider what drives the amount of receipts into
the Highway Trust Fund, which are derived from gas and excise
taxes. The economy drives the receipts. When the economy
stumbles, receipts into the Highway Trust Fund decrease.
Under the approach required by TEA-21 black box fuzzy
logic, investment in highways and the immediate job creation
that highway spending supports contracts as the economy slows.
Just at the time we should be increasing highway spending for
short- and long-term economic stimulus, the TEA-21 autopilot
would have us cut highway spending. This is misguided,
shortsighted, and an abrogation of our prerogatives as elected
officials.
I believe this committee should not, and I believe it will
not, be bound by funding levels derived in an artificially
constrained process void of the public policy and economic
concerns that must influence decisions regarding responsible
investment in highway infrastructure.
Now, moving to other good news in the budget, I note that
the Administration provided $521 million of additional subsidy
for Amtrak in fiscal year 2003. Once again, I wish the
Administration had provided some greater leadership in this
continuing crisis. Simply requesting the same level
appropriation as was requested for last year does little to
extricate the country from this failed experiment in passenger
rail service.
I note that Chairman Murray anticipates an Amtrak hearing
in the near future, and I will save my detailed comments and
observations for that hearing. In short, I think it is time to
stop ignoring reality with Amtrak and just start doing
something that makes sense. The Administration, I believe, must
lead on the issue of Amtrak, because, unfortunately, a majority
of the Congress has demonstrated its inability to effectively
address the chronic Amtrak problem for more than 20 years.
Last year at our budget hearing, Secretary Mineta indicated
that he anticipated spending 70 percent of his time on aviation
matters. I suspect that his estimate turned out to be about
right, although at the time I do not think he was referring to
aviation security matters. The budget requests $4.8 billion for
the Transportation Security Administration. I look forward to
greater detail about how that money, and the $1.25 billion
appropriated for 2002, will be used to enhance the security of
our transportation systems.
As critically important as the security and national
defense issues are, I would urge you to make time for the
Department's other four missions and programs. In particular,
the Coast Guard's Deepwater and National Distress and Response
System Modernization projects are two of the most expensive and
the most challenging procurements that the Coast Guard, if not
the Department, have ever undertaken.
Like Deepwater, the National Distress and Response System
Modernization project is slipping, and deserves greater
attention from OST and OMB than it has received. I was recently
informed that the Coast Guard will postpone the awarding of the
Deepwater contract. This does not bode well for a procurement
that has been considered as having a high risk schedule and
acquisition strategy.
We will have a hearing next week on Coast Guard programs,
and I will go into more depth on those procurements and other
issues at that time. I wanted to bring them to your attention
to encourage you, Under Secretary Magaw, to look into the
Deepwater procurement during this most recent delay, and try to
make some sense of it from a homeland security and
transportation security standpoint.
I am always concerned when a program that is advertised as
the perfect solution to one set of missions for the Coast Guard
emerges with no modification as a new and improved perfect
solution to a dramatically different set of missions. There is
some soap being sold here, and it carries a $10 billion price
tag.
In turn, the NHTSA effort to comply with the TREAD Act
faces some substantial challenges as it had difficulty in
meeting the statutory deadlines. I urge you to provide the
management oversight to get that effort on track. Every year,
more than 40,000 Americans lose their lives on our highways,
while less than 3,000 die in the rest of the system.
Accordingly, whatever improvements we can make in highway
fatality rates pay significant dividends in terms of lives
saved.
The Federal Government is committing more resources than
ever to improve highway safety, and I am not convinced we are
doing as well as we should. ``Click It or Ticket'' or similar
seat belt mobilization campaigns, if applied on a national
basis, should have immediate and lasting safety benefits.
Fiscal year 2003 is an important one for reauthorization
proposals for highways, transit, and aviation. I encourage you
to review the things that have worked and those that have not
before you formulate the Administration's reauthorization
procedures. Clearly, in the aftermath of 9/11, and with the
draconian cuts to the highway program necessitated by TEA-21,
there is a need to substantially reassess the appropriateness
of the lack of flexibility in our infrastructure investment
programs.
What I am trying to say is that you have a lot of
challenges facing you at the Department, and you must
constantly resist only reacting to the crisis of the moment. It
is imperative that you keep a long-term view of all the
missions of the Department, as well as manage the immediate
challenges.
I look forward to this continuing hearing, and to the other
people's statements.
Senator Byrd.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT C. BYRD
Senator Byrd. Chairman Shelby, thank you. Thank you for
your service to the Nation. Thank you for your service to your
State. Thank you for your service to the Senate, as the former
Chairman, and now as Ranking Member. You are a valuable asset
to the Nation. I did not get to hear all of your statement, but
I will have an opportunity to concentrate on it later. At the
moment, I have a statement of my own, and then I must go to the
budget hearing which is in progress at this moment, before
which Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. O'Neill, is appearing.
So I, too, want to wish Secretary Mineta a speedy recovery,
and I hope you will pass along, Mr. Jackson, to him our warm
wishes.
Mr. Jackson. Yes, sir, I will.
Senator Byrd. The events of September 11 focused the minds
of the American people on our national transportation system in
important new ways. Our entire national aviation system was
brought to a halt. People needed urgently to find alternative
ways to travel. Citizens reflected on the security of our
transportation system in ways that they had never done before.
They reflected not only on the safety of the aviation system,
but on other modes of travel as well.
Our transportation network of roads, runways, and railways
has always been central to the health of our national economy.
Roads, runways, railways. Nothing about September 11 changed
that. Yet as I review the President's budget request for the
Department of Transportation for fiscal year 2003, I am greatly
disappointed by its lack of balance.
Hugely increased sums are requested for transportation
security. I do not doubt that these increased sums are needed,
and I support them, but these increases for security are more
than offset by a dramatic $9 billion cut to our investment in
our Nation's highway infrastructure. As such, even with all of
the increased funds requested for transportation security, the
overall budget for the Department of Transportation drops by
$1.7 billion, or almost 3 percent. While our investment in
highway construction has risen in recent years, the fact is
that we have not yet begun to reverse the trends of
accelerating road deterioration and worsening congestion.
I believe that many of my colleagues in the Senate will
agree that we should be looking at ways to move our investment
in highways forward, not backward. Our economy is in recession.
If there ever is an appropriate time to consider putting
thousands of people out of work, now is not the time.
During the Senate's consideration of the TEA-21 highway
bill, I, along with Senator Gramm of Texas, championed an
amendment that sought to ensure that our investment in highways
would fully recognize the receipts coming into the highway
account of the Highway Trust Fund. Up until that point, there
was no recognition in either the budget, or the appropriations
processes, of the billions of dollars that the public was
paying into the Trust Fund, billions that were staying in the
Trust Fund unspent, while our road conditions worsened.
While we were successful in TEA-21 in ensuring that
spending would keep pace with revenues, not much was said at
the time about the fact that the highway account of the Trust
Fund already had an unspent balance of $14.7 billion. Page 744
of President Bush's budget now shows that the unspent balance
has grown to $18.1 billion.
While a portion of this balance must be reserved to pay for
obligations already incurred, the fact is that the majority of
this balance represents tax dollars that were paid at the gas
pump but are not being utilized for highway construction or
renovation. If there ever is a time to consider tapping a
portion of this balance to keep our highway construction
enterprise moving forward, now is the time.
Whether we will be able to achieve that goal will depend on
the larger budget debate that will commence shortly in the
Budget Committee. Chairman Murray is a member of that
committee, as am I. I hope to work with her and with other
Members to see to it that we do not put hundreds of thousands
of jobs at risk while our economy is attempting to pull itself
out of recession.
PREPARED STATEMENTS
Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you, Ranking Member
Shelby, and thank you to the members of the subcommittee on
both sides.
That completes my statement.
[The statements follow:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Robert C. Byrd
Thank you Madam Chairman.
I commend you and your ranking member, Senator Shelby, for moving
out rapidly and initiating hearings on the Administration's budget
request for the Department of Transportation. I, too, want to wish
Secretary Mineta a speedy recovery and I ask you, Mr. Jackson, to
please pass along our warm wishes to the Secretary.
The events of September 11 focused the minds of the American people
on our national transportation system in important new ways. Our entire
national aviation system was brought to a halt. People needed to
urgently find alternative ways to travel. Citizens reflected on the
security of our transportation system in ways that they never have
before. They reflected not only on the security of our aviation system
but on all the other modes of travel as well.
Our transportation network of roads, runways and railways has
always been central to the health of our national economy. Nothing
about September 11 changed that. Yet, as I review the President's
budget request for the Department of Transportation for fiscal year
2003, I am greatly disappointed by its lack of balance.
Hugely increased sums are requested for transportation security and
I don't doubt that these increased sums are needed. However, these
increases for security are more than offset by a dramatic $9 billion
cut to our investment in our nation's highway infrastructure. As such,
even with all the increased funds requested for transportation
security, the overall budget for the Department of Transportation drops
by $1.7 billion or almost 3 percent.
While our investment in highway construction has risen in recent
years, the fact is that we have not yet begun to reverse the trends of
accelerating road deterioration and worsening congestion.
I believe that many of my colleagues in the Senate will agree that
we should be looking for ways to move our investment in highways
forward, not backward. Our economy is in recession. If there ever is an
appropriate time to consider putting hundreds of thousands of people
out of work, now is not the time.
During Senate consideration of the TEA-21 Highway Bill, I, along
with Senator Gramm of Texas, championed an amendment that sought to
ensure that our investment in highways would fully recognize the
receipts coming in the highway account of the Highway Trust Fund. Up
until that point, there was not recognition in either the Budget or
Appropriations processes of the billions of dollars that the public was
paying in the Trust Fund--billions that were staying in the Trust Fund
unspent while our road conditions worsened.
While we were successful in TEA-21 in ensuring that spending would
keep pace with revenues, not much was said at the time about the fact
the highway account of the Trust Fund already had an unspent balance of
$14.784 billion.
Page 744 of President Bush's budget now shows that the unspent
balance has grown to $18.126 billion. While a portion of this balance
must be reserved to pay for obligations already incurred, the fact is,
the majority of this balance represents tax dollars that were paid at
the gas pump but are not being utilized for highway construction or
renovation. If there ever is a time to consider tapping a portion of
this balance to keep our highway construction enterprise moving
forward, now is the time.
Whether we will be able to achieve that goal will depend on the
larger budget debate that will commence shortly in the Budget
Committee. Chairman Murray is a member of that Committee as am I. I
hope to work with her and other members to see to it that we do not put
hundreds of thousands of jobs at risk while our economy is attempting
to pull itself out of recession.
Thank you Madam Chairman.
______
Prepared Statement of Senator Herb Kohl
Good morning and thank you for holding this important hearing
today. I believe that the work of this Subcommittee is essential as we
continue to secure our transportation system post September 11. Welcome
Under Secretary Jackson and Under Secretary Magaw. I look forward to
your comments this morning.
The Senate has been debating a stimulus bill to help jump start our
economy. Many of my colleagues disagree on the best way to do this in
the short run. But one thing is certain, long term sustained economic
growth requires a modern transportation network that allows for people,
goods and services to move about freely and safely.
That is why I am disappointed that the President's budget request
includes a 29 percent cut in much needed funding for highway
construction. During these uncertain economic times, we cannot afford
such a drastic cut in funding for projects that will help create jobs
and help move people and goods safely and efficiently.
I would like to commend you and the Department of Transportation on
your work as it relates to the many provisions included in the Aviation
and Transportation Security Act. I am encouraged to see that the
President's Budget request includes $4.8 billion in total funding for
the new Transportation Security Administration. However, I am
frustrated by the lack of attention the department seems to be giving
to the security of chartered aircraft and general aviation. I will
reserve further comments on this issue until the questioning period,
but I want to put our witnesses on notice that this is a priority for
me.
There can be no need more urgent than the safety of the American
flying public. And the simple fact is that, if air travel is not safe
and passengers do not fly, the entire airline industry is imperiled. We
must ensure that we have sufficient resources to bring aviation
security to an acceptable level, whether that means buying the
necessary numbers of explosive detection machines to screen checked
luggage, paying for the hiring and training of additional airport
personnel to screen checked baggage, or investing in high tech security
devices to identify suspected terrorists.
Last Fall, when we passed the Aviation and Transportation and
Security Act, Congress acted to fix a gaping hole in the entire
aviation security system. While enormous efforts were being made to
check carry-on bags after September 11, until the changes mandated by
this legislation, almost all checked bags were still being loaded onto
our passenger airplanes with no screening. This failure to check bags
was creating an unacceptable security risk for thousands of passengers
everyday and leaving our air transportation system vulnerable to
terrorists.
But now, as a result of this recently passed legislation, all
checked bags must either be screened for explosives or subject to bag
matching so that we know the person who checked the bag actually
boarded the airplane. Most important of all is the requirement that, by
the end of this year, all bags must be screened by explosive detection
machines.
But this legislation will be worthless unless we provide adequate
funding to purchase and install the explosive detection machines. I
will therefore expect our witnesses today to tell us how the
Congressional mandate to install these machines and screen all checked
baggage will be fulfilled by the end of this year.
Thank you Madam Chairman and I look forward to a productive
hearing.
______
Prepared Statement of Senator Richard J. Durbin
Chairman Murray, thank you for holding this important hearing on
the U.S. Department of Transportation's fiscal year 2003 (fiscal year
2003) budget. I look forward to working with you and our Subcommittee
colleagues this year to address a number of critical transportation
issues.
I also want to say a word of welcome to Deputy Secretary Michael
Jackson and new Under Secretary of Transportation for Security John
Magaw. This Congress and this Administration are facing an
unprecedented challenge on aviation and transportation security. We
will be pressed to find adequate resources to help state and local
governments deal with transportation security and fund critical
infrastructure projects.
I want to touch on a few issues this morning.
amtrak
On February 1, Amtrak President George Warrington asked Congress to
provide $1.2 billion in fiscal year 2003 to ensure the continued
nationwide operation of Amtrak. Without this influx of federal funds,
Amtrak officials will be forced to immediately cut jobs and may have to
eliminate long distance train service as soon as October.
As you know, the President included $521 million for Amtrak in his
fiscal year 2003 budget. This is the same level of funding as last year
and represents less than half of Amtrak's request. While I believe this
funding level is inadequate and short-sighted, it is my hope that
Congress, and this subcommittee in particular, will take the necessary
steps to fund fully Amtrak and preserve our only national passenger
rail system.
I've also been working with the Senate Commerce Committee and have
cosponsored legislation that would reauthorize Amtrak, provide
emergency funds for security and life safety, and further develop high-
speed passenger rail service in corridors throughout the country.
But while we wait for action in other committees, we need to go the
extra mile to ensure that intercity passenger rail service is preserved
and that no jobs are lost in this critical transportation sector. We
need this Administration as a partner in this important endeavor.
Yesterday, I met with Federal Railroad Administrator Allan Rutter and
expressed my opinion that unless this Administration steps forward and
gives us a positive signal about Amtrak, then national passenger rail,
as we know it, will come to an abrupt and premature end later this
year.
My home state of Illinois benefits greatly, both directly and
indirectly, from Amtrak jobs and service. An average of 48 Amtrak
trains run each day from 30 Illinois communities on more than 1,000
miles of track. Ridership in the state exceeded 2.9 million during
2000. In 1999, Amtrak employed more than 2,000 Illinois residents and
spent $45.6 million for goods and services in the state.
aviation security
I commend the Department and the new Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) for moving quickly to organize and implement the
aviation security legislation Congress passed last fall. However, as
Inspector General Ken Mead points out, many of the major challenges lie
ahead. For example, deploying and installing explosive detection
systems (EDS) and hiring as many as 40,000 employees for screening and
other aspects of airport and aircraft security.
I understand the current requirements that 100 percent of checked
baggage must been screened by EDS or an alternative method such as
positive passenger match. That's a major improvement from the 10
percent figure we were quoted last fall. However, EDS machines still
play too small of a role in screening checked baggage. The
manufacturing and deployment backlog are primarily to blame. However,
the Inspector General has found these EDS machines to be underutilized.
Inspector General Mead suggested that using the currently deployed
EDS equipment to its fullest potential more than 200 bags per machine
per hour would more than quadruple the overall percentage of EDS
screened checked luggage. He has also recommended that current EDS
staffing levels must be significantly increased to efficiently screen
checked luggage. These actions would bring an added security dimension
to commercial aviation. And I hope the new TSA takes these
recommendations seriously.
I also want to inquire about how TSA is working with smaller
airports around the country. I understand that the Department has
dispatched teams to evaluate airports and their security operations. I
hope that the Department will work cooperatively with airport operators
to help solve many of the security challenges that we'll face in the
coming months and will expeditiously process their information and
requests, such as bomb-blast analyses.
highway funds
I was alarmed by the Administration's almost $9 billion cut to the
federal highway program. According to the Illinois Department of
Transportation, this could mean a $225-$250 million reduction for the
State of Illinois a quarter of the State's federal highway funds. And
as many as 10,000 Illinois jobs could be affected (American Road and
Transportation Builders Association). As we try to alleviate traffic
congestion, improve the environment, stimulate the economy, and provide
increased highway access, I find it remarkable that the Department
would slash highway funding to the states. I will stand with my
colleagues on both the authorization and Appropriations Committees to
correct this serious mistake.
chicago aviation capacity expansion
Finally, I'd like to put a plug in for legislation that I
introduced in the Senate, S. 1786. It would codify an historic aviation
agreement between Illinois Governor Ryan and Chicago Mayor Daley.
This agreement and this legislation are rapidly gaining broad-based
support. To date, there are 18 Senate cosponsors and nearly 90 House
cosponsors. Groups ranging from business to labor to general aviation
to airlines to small/community airports across the Midwest support this
historic agreement and my legislation.
Chicago O'Hare International Airport was the world's busiest last
year. It is also one of the country's most congested and chronically
delayed airports. For all practical purposes, the O'Hare airfield
hasn't been materially improved since 1971 and continues to use an
antiquated runway layout plan. By simply reconfiguring the airport
layout, many weather-related delays could be avoided. By replacing old
runways with safer configurations, delays and cancellations would be
greatly reduced, eliminating delays that often ripple through the
entire nation.
This agreement also moves ahead with a south suburban airport near
Peotone. Common sense dictates that we'll need the capacity in the
future. But just like expanding O'Hare doesn't eliminate the need for a
third airport, building Peotone won't replace O'Hare modernization.
Both are needed to address serious aviation capacity problems in the
region.
Meigs Field on Chicago's Lake Michigan shoreline would also be
preserved under this State-City aviation agreement.
Governor Ryan and Mayor Daley deserve great credit for ending more
than two decades of inaction on airport modernize and expansion. But,
in order for this agreement to become reality and for it to have long-
term benefits, it must be codified. Thus, passing S. 1786 must be a
high priority.
I would welcome the Department's support.
Chairman Murray, again thank you for the opportunity to talk about
these issues and the fiscal year 2003 Budget.
______
Prepared Statement of Senator Patrick J. Leahy
Madam Chairwoman, thank you for calling this hearing today. I would
like to thank our witnesses, Deputy Secretary Jackson and Under
Secretary Magaw, for coming before the subcommittee to discuss the
President's transportation budget request for 2003.
I share the President's concerns about funding necessary rail,
port, and air security programs. But the budget blueprint he has put
forward is really the tale of two budgets. The President has properly
emphasized the budget to combat terrorism, but his domestic budget is
riddled with many opportunistic cuts, motivated by ideology and special
interests, that would hurt America's multi-faceted transportation
system.
For instance, the President calls for the break-up of Amtrak
without offering a comprehensive alternative national rail
transportation plan. He also does not restore funding to the Federal
Highway Trust Fund, which is $8.6 billion short; a deficit that will
leave Vermont highway projects $32.2 million in the hole next year. And
his budget cuts direct funding for the Essential Air Service program
that brings air service to small communities, like Rutland, Vermont.
Without this program, air passenger service to dozens of small
communities across the country may end.
I look forward to reviewing the testimony from today's hearing to
see the direction the Administration plans to take in the coming year.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell
Thank you Madam Chairwoman.
I would first like to thank the Chairwoman, this Committee, and the
Department of Transportation for providing leadership and essential
transportation funding over the years. My state of Colorado is growing
by leaps and bounds. The funding that has been provided by this
Committee has made a profound impact on the development of the
transportation infrastructure that is of utmost importance in
sustaining a favorable economic climate and a high quality of life in
Colorado as it continues to grow.
I would like to point out a couple of projects that have had
particular impact on my state. The funding for the Titan Road/State
Highway 85 intersection greatly improved the safety in a community that
has experienced terrible accidents and deaths at this crossing,
including the deaths of six teenagers in 1995. Additional projects have
enhanced the economic vitality and provide increased mobility such as
the multi-modal T-REX project in metro Denver, which I expect will be a
model project for the rest of the nation. This Committee has also
provided much needed funding to begin repairs on the Broadway Bridge in
Denver, which was constructed in the 1950's and is in such a state of
disrepair that it has become a safety hazard for our thousands of daily
commuters.
With the Homeland Defense build-up in our country, we are facing a
major fiscal challenge as we look at the priorities for fiscal year
2003 and beyond. My constituents and the entire nation are looking to
this Committee to provide the necessary funds to protect those who
travel our country's skies, seas, rails, and roads. I look forward to
working with all of you to meet this challenge and to ensure our
nation's priorities are balanced.
I would like to thank our distinguished guests for coming up here
today to speak with us and I look forward to hearing their statements.
I'm sorry that my good friend Secretary Mineta was not able to join us
and I'm sure we all wish him a healthy and speedy recovery. I don't
want to take up anymore of the Committee's time as I have a number of
questions I'd like to ask at the appropriate time.
HIGHWAY FUNDING
Senator Murray. Thank you very much. We will go ahead and
move forward on questioning. Mr. Jackson, as I mentioned in my
opening statement, OMB Director Daniels maintains that the law
requires that DOT request cuts of more than $8\1/2\ billion in
highway investments in 2003. As I said, if those cuts get
enacted it will result in a loss of over 350,000 jobs.
Your budget asks us to ignore law, and to actually change
current law, in several areas. You ask us to ignore existing
law and enact changes so you can eliminate communities from the
Essential Air Service program. You ask us to ignore existing
law and impose new, unauthorized user fees. You ask us to
ignore existing law and divert Transit Formula Funds for the
President's New Freedom Initiative.
If the President is concerned about jobs, and he is willing
to ignore existing law in all of these other areas, why is he
requesting infrastructure investment cuts of more than $8\1/2\
billion?
Mr. Jackson. Senator, the President's budget is $4.4
billion below the TEA-21 estimated guaranteed obligation
limitation, and that is a significant movement obviously. We
believe, with Senator Shelby, that reauthorization of TEA-21
should look at mechanisms to make sure that we do not have
spikes of this magnitude in the funding for this crucial
program. We also understand that if you look at the historical
payout, the 2003 spending will be roughly a 3-percent cut.
About 27 percent of the amounts in 2003 will be outlayed in
2003, so the full effect of the reduction in the highway budget
would not be felt in 2003.
We believe that the discussion on reauthorization should
address the question whether to allow DOT to smooth highway
funding, even in a year like 2003 when the RABA adjustment
would be negative but the cumulative RABA adjustment is
positive. There is this significant change in the level of
highway funding, but in order to be able to meet the
President's core focus on homeland security and the work that
has to be done at the Department in standing up the new
Transportation Security Administration, we believe overall that
the mechanism, while difficult in this year, is a defensible
approach to take as we start into this conversation.
Senator Murray. I would not disagree that reauthorization
is important, but it is not going to help us in time to help
350,000 jobs, and it is a 10-percent cut in 2004, correct?
Mr. Jackson. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Murray. Well, I hope we get your help, and the
President's help in working with us as Chairman Byrd alluded
to, to make up the shortfall. We have contracts out there, we
have jobs, we have a lot of projects that are going to be
really hurt if we do take this hit in this budget, so I hope we
get the President's willingness to work with us.
AMTRAK FUNDING
Let me ask you another question regarding Amtrak. In your
budget, you requested that Amtrak funding be frozen at $521
million, and your budget states that Amtrak is in need of
legislative reforms. Amtrak maintains that at that level of
funding they will go bankrupt. This is not news to you, I know.
You sit on the Amtrak board, as Secretary Mineta does. Is the
Administration planning to submit a bill to us to show us
precisely what reforms you would propose that would enable
Amtrak to continue operating at the subsidy level of $521
million that you request?
Mr. Jackson. Senator, Secretary Mineta believes, and I
share this belief with great conviction, that inter-city
passenger rail is an absolutely indispensable portion of our
transportation network. We must have a viable inter-city rail
system. We also understand that the system that we have is
severely broken. There is a nuance in the President's budget,
and I do not want us to miss it, so I will emphasize it. The
$521 million--billion request--million dollar, excuse me. I
really fixed the problem there, didn't I.
Senator Murray. Thank you.
Mr. Jackson. The $521 million request is a placeholder so
that we can allow conversation about early reauthorization to
take place. We anticipate engaging with the Congress in what
has been a 30-year, thorny, difficult problem to figure out how
to manage this issue.
I, along with some of my colleagues from the White House
and the Department, met with the Amtrak Reform Council this
morning as they prepare today to release their final
recommendations. We have met to review their thoughts on how to
address the issues, so we know that there will be an ongoing
dialogue.
Senator Murray. What do you mean by a placeholder? Are you
going to come back and ask for more?
Mr. Jackson. We are open to the opportunity of revisiting
the Amtrak budget mark, in light of how the reauthorization
debate takes place.
Senator Murray. You are going to come back before the
subcommittee in March. At that time will you be able to
identify precisely what costs you think can be eliminated from
Amtrak, the cost structure, so that they can stay solvent at
the $521 million?
Mr. Jackson. I do not believe that $521 million is more
than a relatively short-term funding level. That is what we
have requested this year. Amtrak's president has stated that at
this funding level they could not continue to operate the
railroad with its current network, so I think our policy
challenge is to figure out what we need, how much we can afford
to pay, and how we are going to pay for it. We are currently
looking at these issues in light of the financial information
that Amtrak has made available to the public, and we have done
an internal study at DOT of Amtrak financing.
The Amtrak board has retained an outside consulting firm to
help them understand the cost drivers of Amtrak's system. They
have offered to share some of that work with the Administration
in our efforts to try to find a longer term fix to the Amtrak
issue. We will be working this very aggressively. I am
personally going to spend time on this, and the Secretary is,
too.
Senator Murray. I look forward to our March discussion.
Amtrak has said that they need $1.2 billion. You are saying
they need $521 million. I think it is incumbent on the
Administration to show us how they can remain solvent with $521
million if they want to stay alive.
AIRPORT PASSENGER SCREENING
Let me ask you one question, Mr. Magaw, before my time is
up. On February 18, you are going to assume the existing
private sector contracts to do this screening at our airports.
There have been some articles in the paper and stronger rumors
on the street that some of these companies are seeking to take
the taxpayers to the cleaners on their way out the door. Is the
cost of these contracts going to greatly exceed the $700
million estimate that you provided at the end of last year?
Mr. Magaw. We do not believe that they will exceed that
amount at this point. We are trying to continue to negotiate
with the contractors so that we are ready to take the current
screening contracts over on the 17th. We want to keep it fairly
competitive, with as many contractors as we can. We do not
anticipate us going over that amount.
Senator Murray. Do you have any leverage when you are
negotiating these contracts?
Mr. Magaw. As long as there is competition, we have some
leverage. We are trying to take over some of the contracts as
they exist, if we can.
The problem with that is since most of those contracts were
negotiated, there has been a lot of security added since 9/11.
We are trying to do the very best job we can of being
reasonable in terms of the expenditure.
Senator Murray. I understand that you are not going to
assume the contract of Argenbright. Is that related to the
price that they were charging?
Mr. Magaw. They have a continuing contract with the
airline, so we are going to reimburse the airline, not
negotiate another contract. For a short period of time in all
of these issues, until we start getting our Federal force
online, we are going to put a Federal person from TSA at each
one of those airports the day before, or 2 days before, to
watch very carefully how this takes place.
If there are any groups not doing their job, we are going
to replace them. We are also starting to hire the new Federal
security directors for the airports, so while that is taking
place and the new screeners are being trained, the contracts
will be monitored very closely.
Senator Murray. I know Argenbright has 40 percent of the
security services at the Nation's airports. If you are not
assuming their contract, are we going to have enough Federal
employees by 18 February to fill those positions?
Mr. Magaw. The employees within the company that are doing
the screening are not where the problem lies. The problem lies
mainly with the companies, in terms of being able to contract
with them. We are going to move in and watch the people and the
groups that are actually doing the screening. The patch on
their shoulder is irrelevant to us, because what we are looking
for is quality work until we get the Federal screeners trained.
We will not have any trained Federal screeners to put in there
on February 17.
But we are going to have close oversight and we will be
monitoring it. We do have a backup plan if there is a company
that turns and walks, or a company that pulls their people out.
Senator Murray. Do you do not expect major disruptions on
18 February?
Mr. Magaw. In any of our conversations, negotiations,
whether it has been with the Deputy Secretary or myself, or the
lawyers who are working on the contracts, those who have had
information and worked with the airport managers are making the
commitment, along with the airlines, to make this work during
this changeover period, and we believe that to be the fact.
Senator Murray. Thank you. Senator Shelby.
COAST GUARD CAPITAL PLAN
Senator Shelby. Mr. Magaw, I know you have been busy on
other things, for good reason. My concern is that the Coast
Guard's capital program has not been reviewed or restructured
to reflect the emerging port and water security requirements
identified in the past 4 months. In light of the contention
that roughly 25 percent of the Coast Guard's operations will be
on homeland security activities, have you at this point
reviewed the Deepwater program, or have you been briefed on the
Coast Guard's capital plan as it relates to homeland security,
and if not, will you?
Mr. Magaw. I will get a more in-depth briefing. The
Secretary knows the in-depth answer to that question.
Mr. Jackson. Senator, I think it is obvious that the Under
Secretary must be involved in the Coast Guard's capital plan.
Senator Shelby. I know he has been busy as heck.
Mr. Jackson. He has, but we will give him something else to
do, too. I have had several recent briefings on the Coast
Guard's progress, and I am tracking that very closely. You have
it nailed exactly right. About 1 percent of Coast Guard's
mission focused on homeland security prior to the 11th, and
then we surged to about 58 percent. We are now proposing a new
normalcy level at about 22 to 25 percent of the budget.
We believe, and the Commandant has done an evaluation of
this, that the fundamental platform modernization that we are
doing will serve that new normalcy mission well, and that
Deepwater is an essential component of making us able to meet
the needs. There are other port security and improvement issues
that we will take up with the Congress' help. We have $93
million to do some port security work this year, and we are
moving out aggressively to use that money wisely to strengthen
work there, too.
AVIATION SECURITY
Senator Shelby. Mr. Magaw, the Aviation and Transportation
Security Act envisions the development of a data base to
identify individuals who are suspected terrorists, and
procedures to turn them over to law enforcement officials. I
have read press accounts that the Department has prototype
systems under development. I believe myself that information
technology can be a very useful law enforcement tool to prevent
terrorists and other criminals from ever boarding the aircraft.
To be effective, it will be necessary to collect personal
property information that we envision.
Mr. Magaw, do you agree, though, that the personal
information collected for official Government use--in other
words, to protect the public--by Government contractors should
not be allowed to be used for commercial purposes unless the
individual grants his or her consent?
Mr. Magaw. I do, sir. That is right. This has to be very
well protected.
Senator Shelby. Most Americans that I have talked to
understand the need for security. We give up some things for
security only, but not for commercial use.
Mr. Magaw. That is right.
Senator Shelby. And that has to be a strong proviso there.
Mr. Magaw. That is right, yes, sir.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Magaw, airport security--I am not
picking on you. I do not want to upset Secretary Jackson.
Mr. Jackson. I will get mine, I am certain, yes, sir.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Magaw, you have indicated, I believe,
in previous congressional testimony that it is your intention
to have a training facility at each airport to facilitate the
training of Transportation Security Administration personnel.
Have you held any discussions with airport operators on the
lease or rental agreements necessary to accommodate the TSA's
use of space for training, screening, and other purposes at
airport facilities?
Mr. Magaw. We have had discussions about screening space
and those kinds of things. As far as being able to tell them
what kind of space we are going to need for training and our
Airport Security Director, those needs are starting to be
evident to us in terms of size and how much space.
Senator Shelby. You will rent that space, will you not?
Mr. Magaw. Absolutely.
REVENUE ALIGNED BUDGET AUTHORITY
Senator Shelby. Secretary Jackson, I know you have been
smothered by the Aviation Security Stabilization Act, but I
would like to ask you to indulge me just a little on the
practical and political impact of RABA--how do you say it?
Mr. Jackson. RABA, yes, sir.
Senator Shelby. RABA has been in the budget request since
fiscal year 2000. First, compared to the authorized and
guaranteed level of highway spending included in TEA-21 for the
fiscal year 2002, the actual appropriations for highways was
$4.6 billion higher than the authorized level, what could be
called a $4.6 stimulus investment in highways. Unfortunately,
neither Congress nor the Administration received the credit for
that exceptional additional increase in highway spending.
The corollary to the fiscal year 2002 experience is what
your budget request for 2003 portends. Just at the time when
everyone is trying to reassure the American public and industry
that the economy is getting better, the budget request proposes
an $8\1/2\ billion cut, a 26-percent decrease in overall
highway program amount. It is hard to say anything nice about
that request. I cannot imagine that it is a request that you
are over enthusiastic about defending. Can you tell us why that
is the responsible, desirable level of highway investment
consistent with a budget theme of economic security?
Mr. Jackson. Senator, the President's budget tries to
balance a number of very difficult budget priorities this year.
We have made very significant investments that reflect the
challenges that face us in a post-9/11 environment. This was
one of the toughest decisions that we had to accommodate in
this budget. That is a fact. But we know that over the first 5
years of the TEA-21 authorization period we have enjoyed quite
a substantial addition above the guaranteed funding levels that
were in the Act, and that the States have rightfully put this
to good use in our highway system.
For 2003, highway funding would be $4.4 billion below the
intended mark. As I said, we are very much committed to working
with the Congress during reauthorization of TEA-21 to try to
smooth out authorized highway funding levels so that such
swings do not occur, or that we minimize the effects of such
swings. I think that we have a chance to look at the way
highway funds are currently obligated and outlayed in the
reauthorization debate, and we still have an opportunity to
address the issue of the $4.4 billion as it is outlayed over
multiple years.
About 27 percent of highway funds are spent in the first
year, around 41 percent in the next year, and then sending
trails off over multiple years thereafter. So I think there is
a window to take up the question, if the Congress is willing to
work with us, on how we level out these issues. But for this
year there are some very tough choices that had to be made in
our budget. The Secretary and I fully support the President's
desire to address the core objectives that he laid out in the
State of the Union, and that our budget reflects.
FAA CAPITAL PROGRAM
Senator Shelby. Senator Byrd has gone now. I wish he were
still here, because he would be really involved with all of us
on this issue.
One last question. I will be careful and quick. FAA capital
program. We all understand the need there. Would you commit
again, Mr. Secretary, that you will have some of your able
staff to do a ``soup-to-nuts'' review of the FAA's capital
program?
Mr. Jackson. I will be happy to look through all of the
capital program expenditures and make sure we answer any
questions you may have about them.
Senator Murray. Senator Bond.
UNOBLIGATED HIGHWAY TRUST FUND BALANCES
Senator Bond. Thank you, Madam Chair, and following up on
the questions that everybody else is talking about, yesterday
my office was in contact with the Federal Highway
Administration attempting to learn the actual amount of the
unobligated funds in the Highway Trust Fund. As we look at not
only the appropriations process but the pending legislation, it
would be extremely helpful for us to have a ballpark figure of
what the unobligated funds might be so we know what we are
dealing with, with the caveat that all the figures are not
final. Is there any figure you can give us now, or could you
give us in a short time?
Mr. Jackson. Senator, I will pledge to get you the best
figures we have just as quickly as we can, and we will work
with your office to make sure we quickly deliver good data to
you and you get everything you need to be able to take on this
question.
[The information follows:]
At the end of fiscal year 2001, the Highway Account of the Highway
Trust Fund had unpaid obligations in excess of its cash balance. The
cash balance in the Highway Account was $20.372 billion. Outstanding
obligations subject to payment from the Highway Account were $39.77
billion. In addition, there were $27.299 billion in unobligated
authorizations that would eventually be obligated and require payments
from the Highway Account.
The comparable figures for the Mass Transit Account are: cash
balance of $7.369 billion; unpaid obligations of $1.306 billion; and
unobligated authorizations of $29 million.
Senator Bond. Having worked on that before, we are very
much interested in seeing if we cannot come to a good
resolution with you and the members of this Committee and the
EPW Committee on just how we can take care of this shortfall.
INTEGRATION OF AMERICAN AIRLINES/TWA WORK FORCE
I mentioned to you earlier our frequent conversations about
the union security issues and the integration of the American
Airlines employees and TWA employees in American Airlines.
Given the potential disruption to the airline system, the fact
that other unions are already using binding arbitration, and
the fact we clearly need some kind of equitable solution to get
beyond these contentious labor disputes, and I have laid out
all my concerns in the past, what can the Department of
Transportation do to help take care of these issues in a way
that will avoid disruption and assure that all of us who fly
the new American Airlines have the same good service we had in
the past?
Mr. Jackson. Senator, as you know from our conversations
and from your conversations with Secretary Mineta we very much
admire and respect the role that you are taking with your
constituents at TWA in trying to find an equitable solution to
the integration with their new colleagues from American
Airlines.
The disputes in the aviation industry between labor and
management have been many and protracted, and it takes too long
to resolve issues of equity between the parties. Our system
does not, in my personal view, well support quick resolution of
these crucial issues, so I believe that we would be quite
willing to have conversations with industry, labor, and
Congress about what could be done to help find an equitable and
fair resolution of these types of disputes.
They are not something over which that we have inherent
statutory responsibility at DOT, that is the ability to go in
and resolve the labor problems. The merger case between TWA and
American, as you know, sir, from your work in this area, was
approved by the Department of Justice, and we did not have a
chance to impose conditions on the approval. So I am happy to
continue to look at this issue with you. It is a very important
issue.
Senator Bond. Well, we appreciate your looking at it. We
have many discussions, and I know, number one, it is not an
easy issue. You may not have any explicit statutory authority.
We have asked the National Aviation Board to look at it, and I
appreciate your continuing to look at it, but as you continue
to look at it, more and more employees with many years of
seniority are being furloughed as airline traffic continues to
be slow in rebounding, and I would hope that there may be some
at last voluntary efforts to begin the process to encourage
mediation essentially between the two employee groups.
I am sure--the company itself I know wanted to see this
solved. They have a limited role in this, according to them,
and if you can provide some assistance and urge some amicable
settlement, because they are all going to have to be working in
the same airplanes and serving the airline public, I think it
would be extremely helpful, so we will continue to work with
you and hope that we find some way to get everybody in the same
planes agreeing on how they should be there.
AVIATION LOAN GUARANTEES
But I also asked you about Vanguard, and as I told the
chair as we were walking along, I said, there is the cynical
view of banks that a banker is one who lends you an umbrella
and takes it back when it rains. Well, after September 11, we
saw that rain was falling on airlines, and as far as I can
tell, the ATSB has decided to give an umbrella to America West,
but I do not know of any others, and Vanguard obviously,
without a Federal loan guarantee, is going to be yet another
casualty of the attacks on September 11.
Can you help us understand the issues at hand? We
understood that one of the problems was that they really needed
the loan, and that kind of fits the definition of why we set up
the loan program. Maybe you can help us determine what needs to
be done and what conditions you feel are appropriate before
awarding such a loan.
Mr. Jackson. Yes, Senator. I want to say at the start that
the issue involves the evaluation of sensitive financial
information that has been submitted.
Senator Bond. And I agree you cannot get into that. We are
not going to substitute our judgment for your judgment. We just
want your attention on it.
Mr. Jackson. Yes, sir. Well, I can tell you, this one
certainly has Norm Mineta's attention. It has Michael Jackson's
attention as well. We have had a series of conversations about
this. Vanguard has submitted two applications, and so far we
have not found a formula that meets both our requirements and
Vanguard's requirements under the program. But I will
characterize for you what Senator Mineta's counsel is about
this program.
It is our job to try to find out how to make this program
work. We are not sitting in a chair just waiting for people to
throw things over the transom and say, ``Here is our
application,'' and we say ``Yes'' or ``No.'' That is absolutely
not our approach to this issue. We had multiple rounds with
America West before we approved that one.
Senator Bond. Yes. They told me it was harrowing.
Mr. Jackson. Yes, sir, for all parties, I suspect.
Senator Bond. Yes.
Mr. Jackson. But I think we came out with a very fair and
good resolution of that one. We have told this particular
applicant that we are willing to sit down and work through what
is acceptable and how to structure something that is consistent
with the program requirements, and then it will be Vanguard's
choice as to whether or not they can meet or wish to accept
those conditions. Our obligation is to work proactively and
aggressively. We met with them at our office at DOT to help
them understand how to approach this issue, and we will keep
our door open and we remain eager to work with them.
Senator Bond. Mr. Secretary, it looks like we are going to
have lots of phone time together here in the weeks and months
ahead, and I appreciate your efforts. Thank you.
Mr. Jackson. Thank you, sir.
HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAM
Senator Murray. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, there were over
40,000 deaths on our Nation's highways last year--that is, by
the way, more than one World Trade Center incident per month--
and yet your budget for the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration has increased only four one-hundreths of a
percent, and while you have requested this minuscule increase
for the entire agency, your detailed budget reveals that you
want to cut funding for impaired driving prevention by 22
percent, cut funding for occupant protection by 14 percent, and
cut funding for safety standards by 20 percent. How do you
justify these reductions when automotive accidents account for
more than 90 percent of all transportation fatalities?
Mr. Jackson. Senator, we agree that the automotive fatality
issue is the number one safety issue at the Department's
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and
Administrator Runge is working very aggressively to use our
funds in an effective fashion. The ``Click It or Ticket''
program which you mentioned earlier is a good example. We
believe that we have some significant funds to promote this
type of highway safety work, and that we have an adequate pool
of money to move very aggressively here.
Senator Murray. Have you asked to continue that in 2003?
Mr. Jackson. I am sorry, I do not know the answer to that
line item. I will have to check on that and respond to you.
[The information follows:]
The President's Fiscal Year 2003 budget for NHTSA does not propose
any funding specifically for the ``Click It or Ticket'' initiative.
However, NHTSA is planning to amend its regulations to allow the use of
Section 157 innovative seat belt project allocations for advertising
campaigns such as ``Click It or Ticket,'' which was so highly
successful in region IV during May of 2001.
Mr. Jackson. It is something that we are pushing this year
with the States and are very much supportive of.
Senator Murray. Do you want the States to fund it?
Mr. Jackson. No. The States are natural and indispensable
partners in the effort, and we are working very closely to
leverage that type of partnership with State and Federal
participation.
HIGHWAY SAFETY GOALS
Senator Murray. You did not send up a fiscal year 2003
performance plan with the budget, as you have been doing for
the last couple of years. Can you guarantee us that the
Department is not planning to abandon or weaken any of the
safety goals that were included in last year's performance
plan?
Mr. Jackson. We are undertaking a detailed look at all of
our goals. We certainly do not intend to weaken our commitment.
We intend to look at each one of them and to be able to report
back to you what we plan to do, what we can do. We are going to
set the bar high and try to resolve all those important safety
goals.
Senator Murray. You are really short of your goal of 86
percent of all drivers wearing seat belts this year, and I know
you did not request it, but the Committee last year did set
aside $10 million for targeted efforts to boost seat belt use
in the 2002 Appropriations Bill. Your budget terminates that
initiative, and then cuts NHTSA's other efforts on occupant
protection by more than 14 percent. Why should we believe that
you take these performance goals seriously when you present
budget proposals like this one for highway safety?
Mr. Jackson. I assure you that we will work with you on the
budget proposal for this year to make certain that it is being
directed to programs that will effectively meet these
challenges.
EXPLOSIVE DETECTION SYSTEMS
Senator Murray. Mr. Magaw, the next major deadline for the
Transportation Security Administration after you assume all of
the screening functions on February 18, is to screen all
baggage for explosives by the end of this year. That is going
to be a huge undertaking that is going to require installation
of over 2,000 explosive detection machines at the Nation's
airports. If you are not able to meet that deadline, what will
the reason be?
Mr. Magaw. There are four or five barriers that we are
making sure we overcome. It is almost like a hurdle race. If
you knock one over, then it is going to affect the others, and
so right now we are concentrating on the manufacturers. There
are two certified manufacturers and a third is close to being
certified.
But under their normal production today, they can only
produce about 300 machines, maybe less than that.
Senator Murray. In what time frame?
Mr. Magaw. In the time frame we are talking about.
Senator Murray. By the end of this year?
Mr. Magaw. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Murray. 300, and the need is 2,000?
Mr. Magaw. The need is near 2,000.
What the Deputy Secretary and I have been doing, but the
Deputy Secretary has worked mostly on this, is talking to the
three companies trying to get the rights to their equipment and
their production so that we can bring in some larger companies
to look at the production part of it. If we can get larger
companies to come in, and we are conferring with them now, to
take over this production, that number can be reached. That is
one hurdle. So we are still optimistic that that number can be
reached.
One of my concerns, and also the Deputy's and the
Secretary's, is that we have got to make sure that if we did
reach this goal with the machines we have now, is there another
generation hanging right back there that we need to consider as
we are moving along?
The other hurdle is working with the airports, which we are
doing now. How many do we believe they need, and how many do
they believe they need? Some airports are going to need 60 or
65 additional machines. Many of them do not have the space for
more machines, so it is going to take some reconstruction to do
that.
Senator Murray. By the end of this year?
Mr. Magaw. By the end of this year. The supporting of the
floor also needs to be improved, because they are very heavy
machines.
Then the installation cost is fairly expensive, so we have
to put a package together at each airport. That is why we are
dedicating a temporary Federal security person for each airport
within the next week, to start coordinating contracts, union
negotiations, and those kinds of things.
We believe we can still meet those requirements. The reason
we cannot give you the bottom line figures on the TSA budget in
either 2002 or 2003 is that we have to get through that process
so that we know basically what each airport is going to cost
us.
Senator Murray. Do you think we have a reasonable chance of
meeting that goal?
Mr. Magaw. I think we have a reasonable chance of meeting
that goal. As soon as we realize, and as soon as my judgment or
the Secretary's or the Deputy's changes in any way, we will
make sure that you are advised immediately.
EDS CONTRACTS
Mr. Jackson. Senator, I would be very happy to unpack this
very crucial question a little bit more if you want, on the
contracting side. As John has said, we have done some work, and
I can summarize that approach.
We have issued a letter contract to the two firms that are
currently certified to provide EDS machines this week. We had
sent it to them. We had negotiations with them. Each had some
deficiencies that they had to address prior to being able to
get a contract with us, and we have a plan. We have retained
MacKenzie, who has completed an evaluation of the tools that we
can use--EDS machines, trace detection and others in
combination with each other--to do this effectively. We are
using a demonstration at Salt Lake City right now of trace
detection equipment to do some explosive detection screening.
So we have looked at the technological tools that are
available, we have worked with the firms to give them better
sourcing data and production data about how to manufacture more
reliably, and we are now going to look at the second stage
procurement in which we go out and find another firm to build
some portion of the whole that is needed, using intellectual
property which the firms have volunteered to provide to us.
In addition, there is a third firm, Perk and Elmer, that is
very close to finishing its certification cycle, and we are
hopeful that they will successfully complete that. We have
``baked them into the mix'' as well. We are negotiating an
intellectual property license from each manufacturer that would
allow us to complete the manufacture of the remaining number of
machines that we need. We have a plan to work through an
engineering firm that is going to be retained Nation-wide to
help us assess installation problems, and we are looking for a
contract to deliver, install, train, and maintain that whole
equipment set. It is a very complex web of procurement issues,
but we think we are proceeding systematically.
Senator Murray. I think it is important that you keep this
Committee informed as you move through the contract process.
Mr. Jackson. This is absolutely vital, and we are happy to
meet with you on a very routine basis to keep you up to speed
on this, and it is very important.
Senator Murray. Thank you, I look forward to your briefings
to keep us regularly informed----
Mr. Jackson. Great. We would be grateful to have your
counsel and to keep you in close contact on this.
Senator Murray. Senator Shelby.
COST OF EDS EQUIPMENT
Senator Shelby. I just want to comment. In this area, you
are talking about a lot of money.
Mr. Jackson. Yes, sir.
Senator Shelby. A lot of money is going to be spent, and we
want it spent wisely, on the right thing, and as Mr. Magaw said
earlier, competition is the best thing we have going for us in
trying to protect the taxpayers and get the best product.
Mr. Jackson. Yes, sir.
Senator Shelby. I hope you will keep that in mind in this
area, because once you get through this license process, that
could open up more competition.
Mr. Jackson. Yes, sir. It is frustrating to the firms that
manufacture EDS equipment, to the executives who run the
airport authorities, and to me, that we have not dropped on the
table the definitive solution. Because the sums are so large,
and the importance to the economy is so real, we are taking the
time to make coherent decisions that will get good value from
taxpayers' money, and we will look at the principle of
maintaining competition as a constant source of inspiration on
this issue.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Magaw, the explosive detection subject.
I note the transfer of $124 million from the FAA to TSA for
procurement of explosive detection systems.
Is this the total amount of EDS procurement money, or if
not, can you tell me what the total funding for explosive
detection systems is in this budget?
Mr. Jackson. Senator, slightly under $300 million has been
specifically set aside through a multiplicity of mechanisms.
There is some money in the FAA budget and there was some
emergency supplemental money. When you aggregate it, it comes
to slightly under $300 million. I believe the number is $293.5
million, and that money is allowing us to launch this initial
phase of EDS procurement, which is producing a ramp in the
production capabilities of the certified firms so that we can
complete the rest of the deliverables.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Senator Murray. Senator Kohl, then Senator Specter.
GENERAL AVIATION SECURITY
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Magaw, as part of the Aviation and Transportation
Security Act, an amendment was incorporated into the bill at
section 132. This section required the FAA to author a report
to Congress on measures to improve general aviation security.
The report concludes that it is important to develop security
measures for general aviation that can be deployed singly or in
appropriate combination in response to varying threat levels.
What level of threat exists today and, based on that, in
your opinion, what steps need to be taken to provide an
adequate level of security for general aviation?
Mr. Magaw. General aviation stations throughout the country
vary quite a bit in their security efforts. TSA needs to
develop a checklist of things that will help general aviation
personnel tighten their security, not only of their
installation, but also the security of their aircraft and all
of the other things. It is one of the many things that clearly
we need to address.
The youngster who, regretfully, hit the building in Tampa
should not have had access to that aircraft. We need to examine
what kind of things we can build in that are not costly, that
will not allow somebody other than the intended person to start
an aircraft. Right now, at some general services locations, you
have total freedom to walk through, and if they are busy, you
can walk right out on the ramp, as well you know. So we intend
to address that issue in depth, and in a few months I should
have more specific answers for you.
I am in the process now of hiring the highest level of
personnel for TSA, and I want to bring somebody on board that
has the expertise and background to help us understand the
general aviation culture at the same time we are trying to
apply the security.
AIRPORT PASSENGER SCREENING CONTRACTS
Senator Kohl. In addition to authoring the report, section
132 required the FAA to develop and implement a security plan
for larger classes of chartered aircraft defined as an aircraft
upwards of 12,500 pounds, or having about 12 seats or more.
What can you tell us today about the development of this plan,
and will you be ready for its implementation, which I believe
is scheduled within 2 weeks?
Mr. Magaw. I have not addressed that particular plan. I
know the problem, but I have not addressed the topic, and there
is something we are going to be doing in 2 weeks that I am not
aware of.
Mr. Jackson. I think the Senator may be talking about the
2-week implementation of our takeover of the security screening
contracts.
Mr. Magaw. At the airports, oh. I misunderstood. I am
sorry, sir.
Yes, on the 17th we are prepared to take over the screening
contracts. They will not be Federal personnel at that point,
other than a person that we are sending to each airport to
oversee the screening process, work with the airlines, and work
with the contractors.
At the same time, we are starting to hire the Federal
security screeners to take their place, and we will be
monitoring every location in the country very closely. As
quickly as we can recruit and train nearly 28,000 to 30,000
screeners, we will do so.
GENERAL AVIATION SECURITY
Senator Kohl. I appreciate that. I was referring to general
aviation, that we needed a plan for the larger general aviation
aircraft, those with 12 seats or more.
Mr. Jackson. We have submitted a 60-day plan that outlines
the basic approach to general aviation. In addition, FAA has
imposed some security directives that tighten up the security
measures that have to be in place specifically, as you
addressed, Senator, for aircraft 12,500 pounds or more.
For example, aircraft operating out of a commercial airport
have to meet the same safety rules that are in place for
commercial flights. For those departures, we require an
approved security director to review the security plan for
larger aircraft. There is an inspection protocol, a manifest
listing, and a series of FAA security directives, some of which
are public and some of which are confidential and conveyed to
airport security and airline operators.
So we have done something there. I think what you are
hearing from the Under Secretary is that all of us believe this
is an area that we do not yet have as good an approach as we
want to have. It is a very large system, 19,000 plus airports
around the country, and we know that this needs more work. John
is committed to bringing in a team of people to look at this in
more detail.
FAA currently has folks working on this issue. I have been
involved with the Homeland Security Council on efforts to try
to tighten up general aviation security. After the incident in
Florida that the Under Secretary mentioned, we sent out a
security directive and security notice to general aviation
airports talking about the particular set of problems that we
had found in that incident, and offering some counsel about how
to strengthen security.
So it is not an area where I would say that we feel
comfortable that we have done everything that needs to be done.
It is an important area that we will continue to work on and
look at. The industry has helped us try to understand
approaches that might be successful, and we are going to
continue to engage on this one.
Senator Kohl. Okay, and I thank you. I know how much stress
you are under and how much work you have to do, so I am not
suggesting you are not working 24 hours a day, 7 days a week on
your problem.
I would just comment with respect to the general aviation
airports, I fly in and out of them occasionally, and it is
apparent to me, as it is to you, that the level of security is
pretty low, in some cases fairly nonexistent. The aircraft in
those airports are as able to do mayhem as many of the aircraft
that are in our larger airports around the country which are
under your control, and it seems to me until you get a handle
on that problem, it is hard to assert to the American public
that in fact we are dealing with the problems of airplanes.
The airplanes flying out of small airports, general
aviation kinds of activity, are as dangerous as any other
airplane, and I am very fearful that something terrible will
happen and we will all be caught unawares again, and we will be
embarrassed, humiliated, as well as terribly disappointed with
what happens, and I think to some extent you are sitting on a
ticking time bomb.
Mr. Magaw. We will address that issue in depth, Senator.
Senator Kohl. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Murray. Senator Specter.
Senator Specter. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
EXPLOSIVE DETECTION SYSTEMS
The budget for the Department of Transportation has always
been important, but as we look to next year, it is even more
important than ever. I think it ranks right up there with
Defense, and Health, Human Services, and Education, and it is
going to be a tough job finding enough dollars to go around for
all of the needs which are presented here.
Mr. Magaw, I visited the Philadelphia International Airport
this past Monday, and there is an urgent need for these new
explosive detection machines. I am told that the international
airport will require 14 machines at a cost of $42 million, and
they need to move them now, because they are having a new
terminal that costs about $475 million, so they will not have
to retrofit. As I hear the testimony today, about $300 million
is available Nation-wide. How will we meet the mandate for
these explosive detection machines to be in place by the end of
the year, considering the tremendous need and the limitation of
funds?
Mr. Magaw. The funds that you see both in 2002 and 2003
clearly are not going to cover the costs. The President has
said that once we get the requirements analyzed and know what
the cost is, then he is going to support this effort. I take
that in good faith and move forward. The Philadelphia Airport,
as well as the other airports, is very important, and we will
have a person in there next week to start dealing with the
airport manager and all those who know what the problems are to
develop a plan to get that airport the machines and
construction it needs.
Senator Specter. Well, I am pleased to hear that, and there
is enormous concern over airport security, and I am glad to see
the President's commitment and your commitment to get that
done.
MAGLEV AND HIGH-SPEED RAIL
MAGLEV, I think, is going to be the wave of the future,
something that I have been working on now in my 22nd year,
since I got here. I thought that was really the kind of
visionary item which we really had to have. Flying from
Pittsburgh to Philadelphia with regularity, it is an enormous
difficulty with the waits on the tarmac and the weather, et
cetera. With MAGLEV, we will be able to go from Philadelphia to
Pittsburgh in 2 hours and 7 minutes, with intermediate stops in
Lancaster, Harrisburg, Altoona, Johnstown, and Greeensburg, and
I am looking forward to the day when we have a MAGLEV system
which runs from Boston to Richmond, and perhaps to Miami, and
New York to Chicago.
It is my hope that we will develop a real national
constituency for MAGLEV, and there is concern from the
westerners that the competition between Western Pennsylvania
and Baltimore to DC has an eastern tilt, and I think they do
have a point, but what we have to do is get the national
constituency. There can be a line from Orange County,
California to Las Vegas.
We are prepared for the competition. Baltimore to
Washington is a line I know very well. I am there all the time
en route to and from Philadelphia. You have Metroliner and you
have ACELA, and you have the parkways, where if you contrast
getting from Greensburg, Pennsylvania, to the Pittsburgh
International Airport, all you have is bottlenecks. You do not
have any way to go.
Governor Ridge, Senator Santorum and I convened a meeting
in Pittsburgh, and Governor Schweiker has taken over with real
community spirit, and a very hardworking consortium of
steelworkers and U.S. Steel and other companies to put that
together. It would be my hope that we could structure thinking
about some of that on the Environment and Public Works
Committee, where we may be able to tap into TEA-21 and figure
out some way to get additional funding.
I would be interested in your views, Secretary Jackson, as
to your vision for MAGLEV, and how important do you think it is
in looking to really increase transportation and economic
development into the 21st Century.
Mr. Jackson. Senator, I believe that high-speed rail and
MAGLEV are very important things to evaluate as we think about
the future of inter-city passenger rail. Moving along at 40
miles an hour does not get the job done in terms of meeting the
transportation needs of this country for the future. We are
going to have to take up the Amtrak reauthorization, high-speed
rail, and MAGLEV issues in concert with each other to try to
sort out these priorities and to figure out what we need, how
we can afford to pay for it, and what to do. So I look forward
to working with you on those issues.
Senator Specter. Well, I am glad to hear you mention
Amtrak. I recall one of the first meetings I attended in
Senator Baker's office in 1981. David Stockman, Director of
OMB, had zeroed out Amtrak, and it is just indispensable.
I said we would have a clog of the Baltimore Tunnel, and
National Airport would be overrun if we did not have the line
running from New York to Washington, and David Stockman said,
``Well, that is a prosperous line.'' The trustee in bankruptcy
would sell that off in no time, and I said, ``All of the
locomotives would be rusted shut by the time the trustee in
bankruptcy got around to it,'' but we have maintained that
battle, and I think we are surviving, but we have to keep it
going.
HIGHWAY FUNDING
I am very much concerned about the reduction in the Federal
Highway Administration, some $9.2 billion, because of a decline
in the fuel tax and other trust fund receipts. Here again, we
are looking in the Environment and Public Works Committee,
where I also serve, at a mechanism which might be able to
utilize the Highway Trust Fund to make up some of that
shortfall. Do you think that is realistic, Secretary Jackson?
Mr. Jackson. We welcome the opportunity to listen and talk
with you as you look at these mechanisms. What I said to
Senator Shelby earlier was that the variability in highway
funding under the existing TEA-21 program creates a
vulnerability for highway infrastructure. So we look forward,
particularly in the reauthorization discussion, to developing a
means level out these spikes in the funding.
TRANSPORTATION PRIORITIES IN PENNSYLVANIA
Senator Specter. In the limited time I have, I cannot go
through all the priorities my State has, but we lean very, very
heavily--we get support from Chairman Murray and Chairman
Shelby, when he had been the Chairman, but as I look over the
list here, we have a project called the SEPTA Schuykill Valley
Metro, which ties into the Job Access and Reverse Commute
program, which is in at $1.9 billion. It will take people from
Center City Philadelphia, where there are no jobs, out along
the industrial corridor as far as Reading through Montgomery
County, and that is an enormously important program.
Now, the Administration has put in a request for $26.3
million for the Pittsburgh Stage II light rail, and we are
looking at the Pittsburgh North Shore Connector, where we need
to move people from center city Pittsburgh to the two new
stadiums which have been constructed in Pittsburgh.
Every time you turn around, there is an indispensable
ingredient that comes out of the Department of Transportation
budget, to be able to keep up with employment needs or economic
development needs, so we have the Harrisburg Corridor One
Project, which is a very important 30-mile regional light rail
system to take the pressure off the highways, and there is
enormous interest in a Scranton to New York City rail service,
where we have gotten starter money of $1 million, and $200,000
to see if Wilkes-Barre can connect to it, so I mention those
items because it underscores the importance as to your
Department and how we are going to handle the funding.
AIRPORT PASSENGER SCREENING CONTRACTS
I am glad to see, Secretary Magaw, that Argenbright is not
going to be security-company-contracted-with, as I understand
it. Is that so?
Mr. Magaw. You cannot answer that yes or no. Let me
explain. We are reimbursing the airlines any security costs in
the initial days. Argenbright will keep the contract they have
with the airlines for the temporary future, and we will
reimburse the airlines. We will contract with them. We are
going to move that company out as quick as we can in terms of
moving our Federal force in.
Senator Specter. Well, I am glad to hear that you are
moving them out. They were under criminal prosecution,
probation, have violated probation out of the Philadelphia
Federal court, so that I am glad to hear you will keep a sharp
eye, because that is very, very important.
Mr. Jackson. We would expect those contracts to be
concluded in a matter of weeks after the switch-over date.
Senator Specter. Well, give Secretary Mineta our best
wishes for recovery, and Mr. Magaw, are you enjoying your job?
Mr. Magaw. Very busy, and enjoying it. I am challenged by
it, and I am delighted--most Americans after 9/11 want to
serve, and that is the way I feel.
Senator Specter. Well, I am glad to see you in it. I
expected you to be confirmed on December 20. They had that
hurry-up hearing in the Commerce Committee, and we had a little
discussion, you and I, and I thought you were going to be
included in wrap-up that night, so I am glad the President made
an interim appointment. That is one interim appointment that
has not caused any controversy. It is nice to have you.
Mr. Magaw. And I appreciate the Senate voting on it quickly
after you came back.
Senator Specter. Well, we are glad to see you on that job.
You have got a big, big job to do, and we are going to support
you.
Mr. Magaw. Thank you.
Senator Specter. Thank you, Mr. Jackson and Mr. Magaw.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Murray. Thank you.
Mr. Magaw, I am confused by your answer to Senator Specter
on the federalization of our security force. If we are just
simply paying the airlines who are continuing those contracts,
how does that satisfy the requirement that we are federalizing
the security screeners?
Mr. Magaw. Well, the contract is being reimbursed to the
airlines, but we are having people on the scene right there,
taking over supervision of the screening function.
Senator Murray. So it is not federalizing the workers, it
is just having somebody on-site overseeing.
Mr. Magaw. Well, that is why I wanted to explain what was
happening so there was no----
Mr. Jackson. We are federalizing all the workers. It is a
phased-in implementation, so Argenbright will be out of this
process quickly. All of the third-party contractors will, by
the 1-year statutory deadline, be gone from the system, and
everybody will be a Federal employee.
In fact, we intend to phase this in at a cluster of
airports, and then at roughly 25 per week. Thereafter, we will
have a full Federal team in place, and as John said, starting
immediately we will have a supervisory team at each airport. At
a larger airport they will be larger in number; in a small
airport it could be just one.
Senator Murray. I am confused because what you are telling
me is you will have Federal supervisors in place, but you are
still going to be paying the airlines, therefore the airlines
are going to be responsible.
Mr. Jackson. I am sorry, John. I will address the
contracting issue.
Here is how we are handling the switchover in the middle of
this month. We have negotiated and are completing this week,
so-called IDIQ--indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity, I
think. I am acronym-limited here, but it is basically a bulk
purchasing contract with those firms who provide security-
screening at existing locations around the country.
In the case of Argenbright, we have decided not to sign a
bulk purchasing contract with that firm, and we have in place a
temporary transitional tool to allow us to be able to put
third-party screeners in place at each of the airports that
Argenbright currently, serves. They have about 35 airports that
they serve, and then we will switch that over to a full Federal
force as part of the normal implementation.
Senator Murray. Who is paying the screeners? Is it the
airlines, or is it the Federal Government?
Mr. Jackson. The Federal Government pays the bulk contracts
with everyone in the transition. They will work for us; they
will meet new contract requirements; they will have to have our
new screening training requirements in place; and they will
meet the technical, educational and all other requirements of
the statute. So we own the job.
Senator Murray. Is that the case for Argenbright, too?
Mr. Jackson. No, it is not, because we do not intend to
employ Argenbright.
Senator Murray. So in the case of Argenbright's contracts
that you are not going to assume, will you be paying the
airlines, and the airlines will be responsible.
Mr. Jackson. The airlines will continue for a few weeks
after, in some cases but not in all cases, to operate with
Argenbright under their existing contract. So after the 17th,
for the couple of weeks necessary, in some instances, to make a
transition to a different firm, the airlines' existing contract
with Argenbright will remain in place and we will supervise the
airline. They will work for us. We will manage the contract
through the airlines for a short period of a few weeks.
Senator Murray. Thank you. Let me go to another rule that
is causing a lot of distress.
Mr. Jackson. Senator, I might just say, we are barred from
doing business with them, and that is a decision that we agree
with. This contracting mechanism honors the Federal debarment
rules.
Senator Murray. I just wanted to make sure we all
understand what is happening.
Mr. Jackson. Exactly.
AIRPORT PARKING RESTRICTIONS
Senator Murray. Let me ask you another question that is
causing a lot of distress at a lot of our smaller airports, and
that is the 300-foot rule. I think you heard about this at the
Senate Commerce Committee yesterday and said you were going to
inject some common sense.
The act provided that some of these airports could gain
relief from your rule after they put forward some measures to
you, and a number of airports have done that and have been
denied respite. We have small airports who have no parking
whatsoever any more because of the 300-foot rule simply
eliminating all of their parking. We have many airports, small
airports who have no handicap parking, and the airports in my
State just do not see why they are burdened with this
requirement when, you know, a suicide bomber can drive right up
to the terminal if they want to. They just cannot park there.
What do you mean by common sense, and how soon are our
small airports going to see this?
Mr. Jackson. This is an issue that has been difficult to
grapple with, and I want to try to give you some numbers to put
it into context.
First of all, the smallest category of airport, category 4,
was exempted at the outset from this rule, so we are talking
about category X, 1, 2, and 3. Of those airports, we have
allowed for a voluntary application for relief from the rule
and amendments to the rule, and for tailoring the rule to each
particular airport. Of the 168 that have been submitted, 157
have been approved for amendments and changes to the 300-foot
rule. We have 10 that have not been approved. We are still open
to those 10.
I know of one that a Member of Congress called me about
this week. We are going back to work with the airport director
and figure out how to put together appropriate blast zone
protection that is meaningful for that airport.
Here is the punch line, Senator. If one of them has a
problem, we want to help them fix it. This is not intended to
be an arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable requirement. It is
meant to protect life from people who park a bomb, walk away
from their car, and cause a large loss of life. We have to be
reasonable. It does not make any sense to have people parking
in a cow pasture and walking to the airport, so we are very
willing and eager to work with airports to try to do this in a
reasonable fashion.
Senator Murray. I understand it has been difficult to
implement.
Mr. Jackson. It is a thorny issue, and we will keep
whacking at it.
Senator Murray. I appreciate that.
NAVIGATION USER FEE
In my region of the country, the ports are one of the
biggest suppliers of well-paying jobs. Your budget is asking us
to impose a new user navigation fee to be paid by ships that
are transiting U.S. waters. With that fee, you are expecting to
collect $165 million next year and over $300 million in 2004.
Mr. Jackson, won't that fee only increase the likelihood that
ships are going to call on ports in Canada and Mexico instead
of U.S. ports?
Mr. Jackson. We hope not and we think not, and we will come
back to you with a precise legislative recommendation from the
Administration so that we can give meat on the bones of this
proposal.
We recognize that there have been proposals submitted in
the past for user fees to help offset various transportation
needs that have not been accepted by the Congress and not been
adopted. We also recognize that, following the events of 9/11,
that the Congress very much proactively reached to include some
very significant user fees in the aviation world. We hope that
to meet some of the enormous costs of providing for homeland
security in other modes, the Congress would be willing to
engage in a dialogue with us as to whether user fees are
appropriate. We recognize that we have to meet the needs of
commerce and promote the efficient flow of freight and
passengers through the country, so we will submit a proposal
for you.
Senator Murray. You need to know that it is highly
competitive on the West Coast market. Any increased costs for
ships coming into our ports will simply mean that they will
divert to Canada and Mexico, so we have to be very careful when
it comes to these kinds of user fees in that competitive of a
market.
CARGO SECURITY
Mr. Magaw, I think it is important when you impose a new
security cargo regime, that you guarantee that the cargo that
crosses the U.S. or Mexican border will be subject to the exact
same procedures as cargo entering through the U.S. ports as
well, otherwise we are going to deal them another competitive
blow.
PIPELINE SECURITY
On the area of pipeline security, the National Security
Council has identified our Nation's 2.1 million miles of
pipeline as potential targets for terrorism. An attack on
pipelines that carry natural gas, or petroleum, or hazardous
materials could result in a standstill at our Nation's ports
and highways, not to mention, of course, a significant cost to
life. Can you tell me what, if anything, RSPA has proposed in
the budget to ensure the safety of our Nation's pipelines, and
hazardous materials?
Mr. Jackson. Senator, I am going to have to look at the
budget detail on the RSPA pipeline safety, and I would be happy
to get back to you.
Senator Murray. Can tell me if any of the $4.8 billion in
the TSA goes for that as well, I would appreciate that.
Mr. Jackson. Yes, ma'am.
[The information follows:]
The President's Fiscal Year 2003 budget for RSPA does not propose
any funding specifically for pipeline security. However, RSPA is using
resources made available for pipeline safety to ensure the security of
pipelines to the maximum extent possible. For example, RSPA is working
with the Department of Energy and the Federal Bureau of Investigation
to distribute security information and threat warnings to pipeline
operators; securing critical infrastructure mapping information through
a password protection system; working with the pipeline industry to
assess vulnerabilities; developing and implementing protection measures
for pipeline facilities; implementing a coordinated set of protocols
that would be used during inspections to confirm the adequacy of
operators' security practices at critical facilities; and, developing
plans to improve response and recovery preparedness.
None of the funds proposed in the fiscal year 2003 budget for the
Transportation Security Administration would be used for pipeline
security.
MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY
Senator Murray. Mexican trucks, I know your favorite issue,
Mr. Jackson. The Inspector General is close to completing his
review of the implementation of your plans for opening the
border to Mexican trucks, and we are going to hold a hearing
with the IG and Secretary Mineta. Up to this point, can you
tell us quickly how adequately the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration is implementing the safety requirements that we
included in the Appropriations Bill last year?
Mr. Jackson. Yes, ma'am. We are on track to honor and meet
all of the requirements of the statute, and this includes the
regulatory work which we owe the Congress and the public on
this matter, and a plan for hiring and well-training the
individuals who are necessary to do this inspection work. The
week before last, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administrator, Joe Clapp, traveled to Mexico City and had an
extensive meeting with his Mexican counterparts to review
detailed plans. The Secretary has also reviewed a detailed
chart of tasks and deliverables that would meet the
requirements.
We are not going to open the U.S.-Mexico border to provide
operating authority to any carrier until we have done the job.
We think we are on track to do that by early summer. I am
actually traveling with Administrator Clapp tonight to Atlanta
to meet with my counterparts from the Mexican Government, from
two departments, to review the issues and to make certain that
both Governments are working cooperatively and effectively in
this area.
Senator Murray. It is, my understanding that one of the
challenges you face is adequate space at the border so that
unsafe trucks can be put out of service. Is that the biggest
challenge, or are there others?
Mr. Jackson. No, I think that we have that one under
control. We approached the GSA Administrator and asked him to
devote some resources to help us identify some excess Federal
space that we could surface, and they have been very helpful.
Over the long haul it would be desirable for us to have more
complete and permanent facilities to accomplish this mission,
but we will, in future budgets, come back to talk to you about
some of the more comprehensive build-out needs. To do the job
that we have been given, we will have to have space available
to park them. If necessary, we will have them towed back across
the border until they get them properly fixed, and able to
travel on our roads.
Senator Murray. It is one of the requirements we put in the
bill, and I want to stay in close touch with you as we work
through this. We are going to have a hearing on it, but if you
could let us know what you are seeing----
Mr. Jackson. I would be happy, at whatever time is
convenient, to make sure that you get detailed briefings on the
implementation plan for this. I know that Administrator Clapp
would be delighted to work with you and your staff on that one.
Senator Murray. Very good.
PROPOSED BORDER CONTROL AGENCY
Mr. Jackson, let me ask you about one of the proposals that
we are hearing out of the Office of Homeland Security to merge
all the Coast Guard into a new border control agency. Is that
officially dead within the Administration, or is that still an
active proposal?
Mr. Jackson. It would be premature for me to speculate
about work that is ongoing in the Administration prior to the
President making any decision on this. I will say that it has
been a hallmark of his instructions to all of the Departments
and agencies, from the beginning of the post September 11
period, to look at how we can make the border operate more
effectively for our passengers and freight, for security and
efficiency. It has been an ongoing topic.
Senator Murray. Do you think it is wise to sever the Coast
Guard from the Department of Transportation?
Mr. Jackson. I would not speculate on those policy issues
for you here, and I would defer to my President to allow his
Cabinet to continue that discussion. When he makes any decision
in that arena I would be delighted to come back and talk to you
about it.
Senator Murray. I will not pin you down on that.
Mr. Jackson. Thank you. I appreciate it.
TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION BUDGET
Senator Murray. Mr. Magaw, when you were in my office, I
asked whether the Transportation Security Administration would
be providing a fully justified budget request to the Committee.
Your Deputy, Mr. McHale, said that you would, so I was a little
surprised to see you submit only a seven-page document to
defend a request of $4.8 billion. When do you expect to have a
fully justified budget submitted to this Committee?
Mr. Magaw. I believe that we can do it, Madam Chairman, in
60 to 90 days. The surveys at each airport are going to take
some time, and until we get some reasonable numbers from the
airports, we are only going to be----
Senator Murray. 60 to 90 days is going to be hitting us
right when we are marking up. We are going to need some time to
review your request. I really urge you to get that to us
quickly. I know it is a big task, but we are going to be
marking up probably in the middle of May, and we will need some
time to go through your request, so I urge you to get it to us
as quickly as you can.
Mr. Magaw. All right.
Senator Murray. I understand you are going to need a
supplemental appropriation?
Mr. Magaw. We are going to need money from somewhere, and
the President has said that the Administration will support
this program. But I am not at liberty to talk about a
supplemental or anything like that.
Senator Murray. Are you asking everybody to put their
wallets out there?
Mr. Magaw. I know.
Senator Murray. We only have a few places we can look.
Mr. Magaw. I know. That is why it is so important, as you
say, that we get some accurate figures, or reasonably accurate
figures to you for construction costs, for installation
charges, for the cost of machines, and for transporting them
there.
Senator Murray. I know the deadlines are approaching fast.
I know we need to get out an Appropriations Bill. If there is
going to be a Supplemental, we need to know what that is, what
the costs are, and again, I know you are working under intense
deadlines, but if we are going to have the funds for TSA,
looking at the other challenges we have, we have got to get a
handle on this quickly.
Mr. Jackson. Senator, I can comment. We have two challenges
as you have just identified. We have a 2002 challenge and a
2003 challenge. On the 2003 challenge, as we flesh out the
approach that we would take to filling in the $4.8 billion, we
would be happy to give you an interim report so that we do not
wait until the last minute and drop something on you. I would
welcome the chance, as we go along.
This is something that is unprecedented for us and for you,
I recognize, and we do not want to create more difficulty for
the Committee than need be in this case. So as we work our way
through this, we want to just stay in close contact with you.
We will tell you what we know and what we do not know, and when
we get to a problem we do not know how to solve, we will tell
you that, too. We will figure it out and keep in close touch.
Senator Murray. I appreciate that.
TSA ASSOCIATE UNDER SECRETARIES
Mr. Magaw, in recent briefing documents you provided to
this Committee it was not clear whether you expected to have
separate Associate Under Secretaries for Maritime Security,
Rail Security, and Motor Carrier Security. Have you made a
decision on that yet?
Mr. Magaw. I have made an initial decision that our first
high-ranking person will be maritime and land. I am now trying
to recruit an outstanding individual from the trucking industry
who will be able to come in and pay full attention to that
industry. The same thing with the railroads. So the highest-
ranking position in the box that you have seen on the chart
basically says maritime and land security.
We are recruiting and looking at a couple of Coast Guard
admirals to oversee maritime security. At the same time, we
want to have people within that box who are from the other
modes. It is my judgment that the box is going to split fairly
quickly, because there is going to be a quick need for the
other areas to be addressed in more detail. That is my
intention, and I know that--the Deputy and I have talked about
it--it has not been approved, but my intention is to split the
box. Do you have this copy?
Senator Murray. Our staff has it.
Mr. Magaw. Okay. And so while all of maritime and land
appears to be in one box right now, and it is, we are going to
have representatives from every mode in that office who will
pay attention to their specific area of expertise. They will
not only keep the Committee advised, but also give full
attention on their particular mode. As the aviation and other
deadlines are moving by, we are not sitting idle in general
aviation, and we are not sitting idle in railroad or any of the
other modes.
Senator Murray. We will be interested in working with you
to do that. I am curious as to how they are going to interface
together and who is going to be really in charge of security in
each of the modes, and how maritime is going to work with Coast
Guard, so we will have more conversations on these issues.
NATIONAL DISTRESS AND RESPONSE SYSTEM
Let me ask you a question about the Coast Guard, Mr.
Jackson. The IG issued a report on the Coast Guard's distress
awareness system a week ago. Your Department has now placed
this project on a high-risk watch list. Due to extraordinary
cost overruns, the Coast Guard has now eliminated the
requirement that the system be capable of pinpointing the exact
location of distress calls. Even at the lower cost, the Coast
Guard's projected capital needs still exceed OMB's funding
targets by more than $300 million annually. Do you think that
the Coast Guard has dumbed down the system's capabilities to
the point that mariners in distress will be at risk?
Mr. Jackson. No, I do not think that we have dumbed it
down, nor will we. I do believe this is an important priority
that we have not yet got our arms around in terms of the
program being fully implemented and moving forward. It is an
important commitment, and it is one that we will have some
ongoing oversight conversations with you about in this area.
Senator Murray. Of course, you know it is a high priority
for me, so I want to make sure----
Mr. Jackson. Good. It is a high priority for the Secretary
as well.
Senator Murray. The 2002 Appropriations Act does not allow
the Deepwater procurement to go forward unless DOT and OMB
certify in writing that adequate funding will be requested for
the new distress system of the Deepwater program and essential
search and rescue procurements. Is that the reason why we have
not received the certification, due to the uncertain costs?
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Murray. I have no further questions. This
subcommittee stands in recess until Thursday, February 14, when
we will take testimony on the U.S. Coast Guard.
[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., Thursday, February 7, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday,
February 14.]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2003
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2002
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:05 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Patty Murray (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Murray, Mikulski, Shelby, and Stevens.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
U.S. Coast Guard
STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL JAMES M. LOY, COMMANDANT
ACCOMPANIED BY HON. KENNETH M. MEAD, INSPECTOR GENERAL
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATTY MURRAY
Senator Murray. The subcommittee will come to order. Today
the subcommittee will hear testimony on the Coast Guard's
budget request for fiscal year 2003. We are pleased today to be
joined by the Department of Transportation Inspector General
Kenneth Mead, and we also want to welcome our Coast Guard
Commandant, Admiral James Loy.
Today is likely to be Admiral Loy's last appearance before
this committee, as his 4-year term comes to a close this May,
so Admiral, on behalf of all of us on this subcommittee I want
to thank you for your over 40 years of excellent service to
this country.
FISCAL YEAR 2003 FUNDING CHALLENGES
During our hearing with Deputy Secretary Jackson last week,
I pointed out that the subcommittee will face extraordinary
challenges in financing a balanced Transportation bill this
year. The President has proposed a $9 billion cut in highway
spending. Amtrak is near bankruptcy, and the funding
requirements of the new Transportation Security Administration
are expected to grow by more than 250 percent to $4.8 billion.
COAST GUARD FUNDING
With this backdrop, the administration has also requested
an increase in the Coast Guard budget of almost 20 percent.
There is no question that the Coast Guard is in a period of
rapid change, coming on the heels of our national tragedy. In
some ways this period is similar to the aftermath of the EXXON-
VALDEZ tragedy in 1989. As we attempt to respond to the tragedy
of September 11, it is clear that we must do more to protect
our country from terrorist attacks. This is especially true
when you reflect on how vulnerable our port communities are to
further attack.
At the same time, we must not allow the events of September
11 to divert the Coast Guard away from their other core
responsibilities that loomed so large on September 10. The
administration has requested the largest increase in Coast
Guard spending in history, but I think it is important for us
to ask what we are getting if we are successful in fully
funding the administration's request, if we are successful in
providing this historic funding increase, the Coast Guard's
level of increase at fisheries enforcement will barely increase
at all over this year's level. In fact, their level of effort
will still be well below their level of effort from 3 years
ago. This comes at the same time when the Coast Guard has again
failed to meet its performance goal for keeping illegal foreign
fishing vessels out of U.S. waters.
If we are successful in providing this historic funding
increase, the amount of cutter hours, aircraft hours, and boat
hours devoted to marine environmental protection will actually
go down from the level expected for the current year. If we are
successful in providing this historic funding increase, we will
not see any substantial increase in the Coast Guard's level of
effort at drug interdiction. In fact, their level of effort
will still be 25 percent below where it was 3 years ago, and
here again this plan is presented to us at the same time that
the Coast Guard has failed to meet its performance goal for
seizing illegal drugs.
As much as I want the Coast Guard to respond fully to all
of our homeland security needs, the fact is, massive amounts of
funding are also being provided for this function to the
Department of Defense, to the intelligence agencies, and to the
Transportation Security Administration, the DOT agency that is
supposed to be responsible for security in all transportation
modes. We are even told the Department of Defense will soon be
appointing its own Commander in Chief, or CINC, for Homeland
Defense.
COAST GUARD TRADITIONAL MISSIONS
One thing I do know is, we cannot depend upon the
Department of Defense or Transportation Security Administration
to conduct fisheries patrols. We cannot depend upon them to
inspect oil tankers or respond to an oil spill. The Navy's
level of effort in maritime drug interdiction is driven largely
by whether they have ships available. And even when they do
conduct drug patrols, they generally require Coast Guard law
enforcement detachments on board to actually inspect and
prosecute suspect vessels.
The tension between Homeland Security and the Coast Guard's
traditional missions is perhaps starkest in my area of the
country. Puget Sound has many critical Department of Defense
installations, and we are proud of all of them. Immediately
after September 11, Coast Guard vessels traditionally used for
search and rescue were diverted to establish a 24-hour security
zone around those facilities and to escort Navy ships.
In my home State of Washington, this shift came at a time
of unprecedented marine casualties, where 17 recreational
boaters were killed in boating accidents during the months of
August and September alone. While I do not know if any of these
deaths were linked to the reprogram of Coast Guard small boats,
I do know that search and rescue must remain a primary and
focused mission of the Coast Guard. It took months for those
search and rescue boats to return to their normal stations.
Only after I petitioned the Commander in Chief for the Pacific
Fleet, Admiral Fargo, did the Navy expend its own efforts to
guard its own assets.
COAST GUARD'S HOMELAND SECURITY ROLE
When the President submitted his supplemental request for
the Coast Guard, I doubled the amount of funding requested for
Marine Safety and Security Teams so that the Puget Sound could
have its own Coast Guard unit to prosecute this mission without
diverting other Coast Guard units from their traditional
missions.
No one wants to see the needs of the Coast Guard fully met
more than I do. When I think of the needs of the Coast Guard, I
do not think of Washington, D.C., I think of the seamen and
petty officers in Washington State. They deserve the best
equipment and best training that we can give them. They also
deserve a humane work week so they can conduct all their
missions with excellence, not exhaustion, and so as we once
again expend the Coast Guard's efforts in a critically
important mission, I intend to make sure that it is not done
entirely on the backs of the hard-working Coast Guard members
in the field, and I also intend to make sure that the expansion
of this mission is in balance with the continuing needs of all
other missions, and that all the appropriate Federal agencies
pay their fair share of the cost.
I will turn to Senator Shelby for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and again,
welcome, Inspector General Mead and Admiral Loy, and Admiral
Loy for what may be, as the Chairwoman said, your final
appearance before this subcommittee. Admiral Loy, I do not want
to miss this opportunity to acknowledge your contributions to
and your stewardship of the Coast Guard. You are to be
commended for your service to the Coast Guard, Admiral, and to
this Nation.
While we have not always agreed on tactics, priorities, or
the best way to accomplish the mission, we have always agreed,
sir, on the way to accomplish, always agreed on the need to
support the various missions of the Coast Guard, the need to
recapitalize the Coast Guard's asset base, and to make the
Coast Guard a meaningful and attractive career choice for young
Americans.
NATIONAL DISTRESS SYSTEM
While we have agreed on many, if not most issues facing the
Coast Guard, we do have healthy differences on how to address
some of those challenges. I would like to spend just a few
minutes on some of those differences. I am concerned that the
Coast Guard is trading away capability and coverage in the
national distress system modernization program in order to trim
costs after receiving contractor estimates that were three
times Coast Guard projections.
The promise of this modernization was the capability to
precisely locate a boater in distress. Unfortunately, the Coast
Guard seems willing to trade that capability away and settle
for just knowing in what direction the distressed mariner is
in. On top of that, the Coast Guard's own capital budget does
not appear to fully fund even this less capable system. My
staff tells me that this procurement appears to be underfunded
by at least $110 million.
If we are going to do this modernization, and I believe we
must, Admiral, why would we buy a system that has coverage gaps
and dumbs down capabilities? Why would we want to give up on
that critical 911 life-saving feature when time is of the
essence in an emergency situation? Local police and fire
officials have had that capability since the seventies. Time
has long passed for the Coast Guard to have this capability as
well.
The Inspector General's recent report on National Distress
System modernization concludes that we should develop a firm
plan before contract award. This is good advice, and the Coast
Guard should not delay in developing that plan. Unfortunately,
the National Distress System modernization system problems are
a piece of cake compared to the Integrated Deepwater System
procurement.
INTEGRATED DEEPWATER PROCUREMENT
For 4 years this subcommittee has expressed concern about
the risk inherent in the Coast Guard's big bang procurement
strategy for Deepwater. We have questioned the affordability,
the procurement risk, the lack of exit strategies, the Coast
Guard's blind eye to changing circumstances, and the impact
that Deepwater's funding has on other capital investments the
Coast Guard must make to maintain its capital plan, and we are
at this critical point just at the time when the administration
is saying we have to do more for Homeland Security, when the
Congress is saying we cannot neglect other missions, including
Search and Rescue and Fisheries Enforcement, and when the
Inspector General is saying that the National Distress System
modernization is in danger of being underfunded.
Madam Chairman, the Coast Guard's capital numbers do not
add up, and it appears the Department is not reviewing and
restructuring the capital budget to accommodate the other
internal challenges within the AC&I budget line and the
changing circumstances since the attacks of September 11. To
illustrate the changing nature of the operational mission
requirements facing the Coast Guard, I would draw your
attention to the two charts that I have here.
Admiral, these charts should look familiar. They came from
a Coast Guard presentation about the nature of the threat and
the New Normalcy. The first chart depicts the position of Coast
Guard assets on 10 September. That pre-terrorist attack
deployment can be characterized as being in the transitional
zone between brown and blue water.
The second chart depicts the redeployment of those assets a
week later to better meet the emerging threat. That chart shows
Coast Guard assets hugging America's coastline, deployed almost
exclusively in the littoral zone, in brown water.
Many of you will recall the press pictures of Coast Guard
cutters, I believe it was a 378-foot cutter on-station on New
York Harbor, and more recently the substantial Coast Guard
presence in New Orleans for the Super Bowl. Both of these
deployments were appropriate and necessary in light of the
threat. The events of September 11, as graphically illustrated
on the charts, dramatically changed the Coast Guard's mission
profile. The capital budget request, as represented by
Deepwater, does not reflect the change.
Madam Chairman, that is not the only problem with
Deepwater. Forget for a moment the disconnect between the
mission profile and the budget request. From my experience on
this subcommittee, the Department has struggled with large and
complicated procurements. Inspector General Mead could go on
for hours about the Boston Central Artery, the advanced
automation system, WAS, and plenty of other procurements.
My experience on other subcommittees leads me to believe
that this problem is not unique to the Department of
Transportation. The one conclusion we can draw is that the
larger and the more complicated the procurement, the more
certain the overruns and schedule slippages. Deepwater is
already slipping, even though it has not delivered anything but
studies and internal machinations, yet for the 4 year in a row
we are being asked to appropriate a blank check, this year for
$500 million, and being asked to trust an untried, unproven,
and risky strategy.
In some situations, complexity and size are unavoidable,
but not here. Deepwater is basically four categories of
procurements; ships, aircraft, sensors, and communications
systems. It is almost as though someone sat around and asked
what the most difficult and risky way to capitalize the Coast
Guard's long-range assets would be. Here it is.
But Madam Chairman, the problems do not end there. If you
combine funding projections for Deepwater and the National
Distress System modernization, they consume 80 percent of the
capital appropriations for the next 5 years. If history is any
guide, these programs will consume an even greater portion of
the capital budget in the future, as their cost escalates.
CAPITAL PLAN
Deepwater is already squeezing out other capital projects.
If you take a look at the Coast Guard's 5-year capital plan,
you see that the number of projects shrinks by more than 6
percent this year alone. That includes the Coast Guard's family
housing appropriation, which is not programmed for any funding
in fiscal years 2004 and 2005. I know that that will come as a
surprise to Secretary Mineta and to the Coast Guard enlisted
personnel.
The Coast Guard Magazine regularly highlights how important
improving Coast Guard housing is for retention and quality of
life, but this budget tells me that those issues get sacrificed
at the altar of Deepwater.
Now, it is hard to envision cost escalations in Deepwater
even before a contract award, but that is what the budget
presents. After multiple briefings characterizing Deepwater as
a 20-year, $500-million-per-year procurement, the capital plan
now inflates future funding.
To my knowledge, there is no other procurement line in the
transportation budget that gets COLA. This inflation adjustment
effectively robs all the other capital projects of an
additional $292 million over the next 4 years. Why, then, is
the Coast Guard unnecessarily bundling these other four
procurement categories and ignoring changing circumstances, the
warning signals and the crowding out occurring in the AC&I
budget? I wish I knew.
DEEPWATER
Simply put, the procurement strategy makes little sense and
is a black hole in the Coast Guard's capital budget. There are
many reasons to be concerned about the Deepwater program. This
procurement was justified by a study. The law certifies that
the Deepwater and the National Distress System modernization
are fully funded within the capital plan. There is a tab for
that certification in the budget justification but no
certification. The budget outyears have been inflated, yet we
still do not know what we are buying. The law requires details
on assets to be procured, but the budget justification is
nonresponsive.
Last year, this was a 20-year procurement. Now the Coast
Guard says it could last as long as 30 years, yet we are being
asked to appropriate another blank check, bringing the total to
$890 million. The responsible thing for Congress to do is to
withhold further funding for this program until it has been
restructured to meet the change in mission profile,
restructured to meet other necessary capital investment, and
restructured to minimize the procurement risk.
Now, in light of these complaints I know some will question
my commitment to modernizing the Coast Guard's capital plant.
Let me repeat what I have said for the past 4 years as chairman
and now Ranking Member of this subcommittee: the Coast Guard
needs to modernize or replace its aircraft, communications
equipment, and especially its ships.
Our goal with these procurements and the rest of the Coast
Guard's capital budget must be to optimize the mix of tools in
the hands of men and women of the Coast Guard. I would think
that we would take the extra time to get it right and to
minimize the risk to the taxpayer and the Coast Guard and the
Department's other priorities. I stand ready to work with you,
Madam Chairman, and with you, Admiral Loy, to that end.
Thank you.
ADDITIONAL SUBMITTED STATEMENTS
Senator Murray. The following statements were received from
Senators Mikulski, Kohl and Durbin which will be inserted in
the record at this point.
[The statements follow:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Barbara A. Mikulski
I would like to take this opportunity to welcome Admiral Loy and
Mr. Mead. It's a pleasure to be here with you today to discuss the
Coast Guard's fiscal year 2003 budget request. You perform a wide array
of missions that support our national security. I want to make sure you
have what you need and to thank you for all that you do every day. I
would like to offer a special thanks to Admiral Loy for his almost 40
years of dedicated service to this country and his unfailing leadership
of the Coast Guard since 1998.
Our U.S. Coast Guard is one of the most efficient and effective of
all Federal agencies, performing essential missions that address
national safety and homeland security. The men and women of the Coast
Guard put their lives on the line everyday to save those who suffer
calamities at sea, to apprehend drug and contraband smugglers, to
protect our fisheries and other marine resources, and to safeguard our
environment from oil spills and other hazards.
Each day the Coast Guard conducts 109 Search and Rescue missions.
They also seize over 169 pounds of marijuana and 306 pounds of cocaine,
while responding to 20 oil or hazardous chemical spills, in their
normal course of action.
And then came September 11. What happened that day was not simply
an attack against America, it was a crime against democracy, decency
and humanity. Immediately following the terrorists attacks, the U.S.
Coast Guard responded quickly to the Nations's homeland security needs.
They reprogrammed a significant number of their assets to provide port
security. The Coast Guard's port security mission has expanded since 9/
11 from 1-2 percent of daily operations to around 50-60 percent today.
Maritime industries contribute $742 billion annually to our
economy. This is essential because 95 percent of America's trade moves
over water and we would be crippled if there was an attack on our
maritime commerce. Maritime borders of the United States include 95,000
miles of open shoreline and 361 ports, including my home state's Port
of Baltimore.
The Coast Guard was there when we called, and we need to ensure
that they have the assets to meet these new challenges. I want to
ensure that the world's best Coast Guard is the world's best equipped
Coast Guard. And yet, we ask them to operate a fleet of ships and
aircraft that is one of the oldest in the world. Some of their ships
date back to WWII and many are quickly approaching the end of their
useful service lives. The Coast Guard's fleet is technologically
outdated, personnel intensive, and increasingly expensive to operate
and maintain. The Deepwater project would replace these antiquated
systems high and medium endurance cutters and aircraft and the
associated sensor and communications systems.
I am absolutely committed to the U.S. Coast Guard and to Maryland's
own Coast Guard Yard at Curtis Bay, which serves as a core logistics
facility that helps ensure fleet readiness.
Admiral Loy, I look forward to working with you to address the
Coast Guard's current and future readiness needs.
______
Prepared Statement of Senator Herb Kohl
Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. Congratulations on becoming
our new Chair of the Subcommittee. I would like to thank Admiral Loy
and Mr. Mead for taking the time this morning to share their thoughts
on the fiscal year 2002 Coast Guard budget request. The issues we are
here to discuss are very important to myself and the people of
Wisconsin. The Coast Guard plays an essential role in both safety and
commerce, and I would like to take this opportunity to applaud the work
they have done in Wisconsin.
We all know that increased maritime commerce along with increased
hostile threats to our coastline will continue to pose serious demands
on your ability to provide the service we as Americans are all proud
of. We all also know that it is impossible to meet those threats and
demands of the future with a Coast Guard fleet from the past. The wear
and tear on your personnel and equipment have accelerated, resulting in
increased risks by having tired people operating obsolete equipment. We
as members of this Subcommittee will work with you to make sure that
the Coast Guard is positioned and equipped to effectively achieve your
mission of protecting the public, the environment, and U.S. economic
interests in our waterways and ports for the many years to come.
I look forward to hearing from you on how the fiscal year 2002
Budget request for the Coast Guard takes us in the direction of
modernization and increased readiness. The Deepwater Project is an
important component of that effort and I am interested to hear your
comments on how you believe this project adds to your overall
modernizing strategy.
Again, thank you for your testimony this morning and I look forward
to working with this Subcommittee, and with the Coast Guard to continue
our successes of the past and prepare for future challenges both in
Wisconsin and the rest of the country.
______
Prepared Statement of Senator Richard J. Durbin
Chairman Murray, thank you for holding this important hearing on
the fiscal year 2003 U.S. Coast Guard budget. I would like to join you
in welcoming Admiral James M. Loy, Commandant of the Coast Guard, and
Transportation Inspector General Ken Mead.
I would like to take just a moment to thank Admiral Loy for his
outstanding service to our country and for his fine leadership of the
U.S. Coast Guard. While we'll miss his presence and leadership in
Washington, we wish him the best of luck in retirement.
My opening statement is brief. I simply want to say thank you to
the U.S. Coast Guard. The Coast Guard has done excellent work under
less-than-ideal circumstances. They rushed to protect our ports and
other critical infrastructure in the wake of September 11. And they
have maintained their vigilance and dedication through the highest
state of alert since World War II.
Twice since September 11--in October and January--I have visited
the men and women of the Coast Guard in Chicago to thank them for their
service and to hear about the challenges they continue to face every
day. In fact, the last time we got together it was Super Bowl Sunday,
with a foot of snow on the ground, and chilling temperatures. But, as
usual, the Coast Guard was doing its job and not complaining about the
cold weather or the increases in its duties. They are true
professionals.
I believe the Great Lakes and the Chicago Lake Michigan shoreline
are in good hands. I'd like to publicly acknowledge Admiral James Hull
and the leadership of the Chicago MSO. I look forward to my continued
work with them.
Chairman Murray, thanks to this Subcommittee and the fiscal year
2002 conference report, Chicago will soon see a rebuilt U.S. Coast
Guard marine safety and research station near Navy Pier. This project
has the potential to significantly improve public safety and law
enforcement by rebuilding an old, unused station and by facilitating
cooperation among local, State, and Federal marine safety authorities.
I look forward to officially opening the station in the near future.
Of course, one of the regional challenges remains attracting a
full-time USCG helicopter search and rescue team in the Chicagoland
area. There's a long history here. Up to this point, a solution has
eluded us. But, together with the Coast Guard, City of Chicago, State
of Illinois, and the Illinois Congressional Delegation, I'm confident
we can come to an agreement that will improve safety and help give
boaters and other users of southwestern Lake Michigan peace of mind.
I would also like to put in a plug for the EJ&E railroad bridge
near Morris, Illinois. This bridge is one of the most frequently hit in
the country and has been identified as needing major alteration. This
Subcommittee has provided nearly $7 million over the last 3 fiscal
years toward the EJ&E railroad bridge's reconstruction and included
some very specific instructions to the Coast Guard. I hope the Coast
Guard will proceed with this important alteration project to ensure the
Illinois River remains safe and navigable.
I look forward to working with the U.S. Coast Guard on homeland
security, these Illinois projects, and the Integrated Deep Water System
program in fiscal year 2003 and beyond.
Thank you, Chairman Murray, for scheduling today's hearing.
Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Senator Shelby. We
will now turn to Admiral Loy for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL JAMES M. LOY
Admiral Loy. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. Good
morning to the distinguished members of the subcommittee. It is
a pleasure to appear before you today to discuss the Coast
Guard's fiscal year 2003 budget request and its effect on the
essential daily services we provide the American public and, I
might say, across the full range of the mission profile that
both you and Mr. Shelby have mentioned already this morning,
but I think my first responsibility today is to thank you,
Madam Chairman, for your personal effort and for that of the
committee membership and staff during the post 9/11 period when
the Transportation Appropriation for 2002 and the fall
supplemental was being negotiated.
SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING
I am especially pleased with the structure of the $209-
million supplemental as it reflected not only the immediate
maritime security requirements, including paying reservists
called to duty, but also the 1\1/2\ years of the fiscal year
2002 National Defense Authorization Act exposure. That effort
has enabled us to put the full capability of the Coast Guard
into the war on terrorism. You were there when we needed you,
and I am very grateful for that.
Working with Secretary Mineta and the Department of
Transportation, the Coast Guard's fiscal 2003 budget first and
foremost represents significant increases to address our
Homeland Security responsibilities. We are in a resource crisis
to stand up the permanent capability to deal with our maritime
security challenges, and this budget addresses it strongly, as
you have suggested in your opening statement, and when the
President said the budget being sent to the Congress has the
largest increase in spending for Coast Guard in our Nation's
history, our ports, waterways, and coastal security are the
focus of that increase.
Last year, I talked about the Coast Guard's multiyear plan
to transform our organization by restoring our readiness and
shaping our future to enable the Coast Guard as a
multimissioned maritime military organization to adapt to the
need of our Nation. We should be applauding the accomplishments
of this organization on the occasion of 9/11. Those charts that
Senator Shelby reflected represented the very key aspect of
what we do best for America. We shift gears when necessary to
go to the Nation's primary need, and we adjust accordingly in
the aftermath of that shift that the Nation requires.
This budget also methodically continues that strategic
effort and also concentrates on our efforts to rebuild our
Search and Rescue program, a clear administration and
congressional priority and, I might add, one of my own. All
these intentions were shocked by the future that arrived
unannounced on September 11 of last year. The transformation
that we had designed occurred sooner, faster, and with greater
force than we might have anticipated, but it did not alter our
fundamental vision, and we must continue that transformation.
As we bolster the foundation of our service, we will
simultaneously enhance our increased maritime homeland security
capabilities.
MARITIME SECURITY
Madam Chairman, I will make just brief comments about four
items that I believe frame this budget. First, maritime
security. The Coast Guard, with strong support from Secretary
Mineta, from Governor Ridge and from the President, has
developed five key goals which, when met, will radically
improve the security of our Nation's ports and waterways. This
fiscal 2003 budget will make significant strides towards those
five goals, and they are simply to build Maritime Domain
Awareness in our ports and waterways and the approaches to this
Nation, to control the movement of high-interest vessels, to
enhance our presence on our waterways, to protect critical
infrastructure, and especially with respect to Coast Guard
force protection, and to use outreach both at home and abroad
to create an all-hands evolution, because it is there and only
there that we will actually realize the greater security
profile we need. Much of this budget focuses on accomplishing
those goals.
SEARCH AND RESCUE PROGRAM
Secondly, our search and rescue program. This committee
focused on our SAR program last year, and I want to report back
that I was listening very carefully. The enacted 2002 budget
and the supplemental in the 2003 request are systematic steps
in the 5-year plan that we have developed and that we have
spoken with you about. We just recently offered a very
significant review of that plan to the Inspector General's
staff, and my feedback from Mr. Mead is that they were very
pleased with that report.
More importantly, clear capability improvements,
significant head count additions, solid training investments,
and very real equipment and technology improvements have been
made and will continue to be made in the 2003 budget and the
following years thereafter.
NATIONAL DISTRESS MODERNIZATION
Third, the National Distress Response System Modernization
Project. This project will modernize the capital infrastructure
that enables effective safety and security response capability.
Many call it our maritime 911 system, and it is that and more.
This budget seeks $90 million to accelerate the project. As
this committee requested, there seems to be three areas of
concern here: (1) did we eliminate some kind of important
capabilities in the phase 2 request for proposal which went on
the street, (2) will there still be coverage gaps associated
with our new system, and 3, is our adjusted standard for system
restoration from a 6 to 24-hour standard a reasonable one in
the wake of what might be a hurricane that goes by and topples
towers?
Well, we have spent an awful lot of time on these three and
many other questions as the requirements were being modified,
and the real RFP for phase 2 was issued just last week. I
believe we made very solid, cost-effective decisions on each
one of those questions. The new system is enormously important
not only for search and rescue, but as the command and control
system for all of our missions, including maritime security. We
are on track to complete the system by the fourth quarter of
2006, as directed by the Congress, and I welcome your questions
with regard to any of those three issues.
INTEGRATED DEEPWATER
Fourth and last, the Integrated Deepwater System. On his
recent trip to Portland, Maine, President Bush said, we must
make sure our Coast Guard has a modern fleet of vessels, and
the Congress has helped us move in that direction. It has been
a long and, yes, tortuous path to make sure we are doing this
the right way. We have reached out time and time again to get
advice and counsel from experts. We are now only a few months
away from an award. We are on track with forward-thinking, and
strongly applaud that acquisition strategy.
Last year, Senator Shelby cautioned us to be meticulous, to
be methodical, and not to rush to a decision, and we have done
that and more. At the request of the Office of Management and
Budget, the Acquisitions Solutions Incorporated Company
conducted a full, independent review of the Integrated
Deepwater System phase 2 RFP. It did delay our time line, but I
believe it was time well-spent, because we got the 15th or 20th
or however many times you want to count it affirmation that the
acquisition strategy was, in fact, right on target, exactly
what this project deserved, with the attention being spent to
it being right on track.
The review concluded that the project was well-conceived,
well-developed, and well-managed. They strongly supported the
acquisition strategy and said they felt the Integrated
Deepwater System would become a model of performance-based
success for others in Government to emulate in the future.
As we speak, our team is reviewing the three proposals
offered to the RFP. We remain ready to award in the third
quarter of fiscal 2002. This budget supports the next step. IDS
will provide capability across all mission areas, including
maritime security. It is the right project whose time has come,
and we should move forward on it aggressively immediately.
Madam Chairman, my written statement closes with a quote
from the President. He said, quote, I saw how the Coast Guard
has responded after 9/11, and I know how important the Coast
Guard is for the safety and security and the well-being of our
American citizens, close quote. I am enormously proud of what
every member of my service has been doing before and after 9/
11, and our great strength is our multimission capability and
the inherent adaptability to shift focus to the Nation's
immediate maritime needs. That is what we did on 9/11. This
budget will underpin this capability in fiscal year 2003.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Madam Chairman, I have provided to the staff a small folder
of the copies of the slides that were provided and, if there is
any value to them through the course of the hearing, I offer
you those to note along the way, as we discuss these issues.
Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I look forward to your
questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Admiral James M. Loy
introduction
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the
Subcommittee. It is a pleasure to appear before you today to discuss
the Coast Guard's fiscal year 2003 budget request and its impact on the
essential daily services we provide the American public.
Working with Secretary Mineta and the Department of Transportation,
the Coast Guard's fiscal year 2003 budget first and foremost represents
significant increases to address our Homeland Security
responsibilities. When the President said, ``the budget [being sent] to
the United States Congress [has] the largest increase in spending for
the Coast Guard in our Nation's history'' our ports, waterways, and
coastal security are the focus.
Last year I talked about the Coast Guard's multi-year plan to
transform our organization by Restoring Our Readiness and Shaping Our
Future to enable the Coast Guard, as a multi-missioned, maritime,
military organization, to adapt to the needs of our Nation. This budget
also methodically continues that strategic effort and also concentrates
on our efforts to rebuild our Search and Rescue program, a clear
Administration and Congressional priority. All these intentions were
changed on September 11 of last year. The transformation that we had
designed occurred sooner, faster, and with greater force than we might
have anticipated but it did not alter our fundamental vision--we must
continue that transformation. As we bolster the foundation of our
service, we'll simultaneously enhance our increased Maritime Homeland
Security capabilities.
transforming our organization
The Coast Guard achieves its flexibility and strength through its
military discipline, multi-mission character, and civil law enforcement
authority. This unique authority and flexibility in operations allows
our organization to shift our resources rapidly from one priority to
another, often in a matter of minutes.
Our mission profile is different than planned a year ago. At that
time, Marine Safety was allocated 14 percent of our mission portfolio
including the Coast Guard's traditional Port Safety and Security
efforts. In the days and weeks following the terrorist attacks, we
dedicated over half of all Coast Guard resources to Maritime Homeland
Security-or as we now refer to it-Ports, Waterway, and Coastal
Security. In fiscal year 2003, our traditional Marine Safety activities
coupled with the resources dedicated to Ports, Waterways & Coastal
Security represent a very significant 27 percent of our Coast Guard
resources.
Our Maritime Transportation System (MTS) is both valuable and
vulnerable. The MTS includes waterways, ports, intermodal connections,
vessels and vehicles. The Maritime Transportation System moves 95
percent of the Nation's overseas trade accounting for nearly $1
trillion in GDP. Protecting America from terrorist threats requires
constant vigilance across every mode of transportation: air, land and
sea. The agencies within the Department of Transportation, including
the U.S. Coast Guard, the Maritime Administration (MARAD), and the
Transportation Security Administration touch all three modes of
transportation and are cooperatively linked. The vast majority of the
cargo handled by this system is immediately loaded onto or has just
been unloaded from railcars and truckbeds, making the borders of the
U.S. seaport network especially vulnerable. The Coast Guard, with
strong support of Secretary Mineta, has developed five key goals, which
when met will protect and ensure the safety of our Nation's waterways
and ports, as well as maintain and increase public confidence in the
Maritime Transportation System. In fiscal year 2003 the Coast Guard
will make great strides in addressing these five goals:
Build maritime domain awareness.--The United States must have an
awareness of all vessels--with their cargo and crew along with
associated risk profiles- that operate to and from our ports, or
transit our coastal waters. We will complete Port Vulnerability
Assessments for the Nation's 50 most critical ports. There are also
approximately 300 personnel and $88 million requested to establish
intelligence fusion centers for the collection, analysis, and sharing
of intelligence information. The initiatives in this component of our
have the potential to significantly reduce security risks while
allowing better decision making and allocation of security resources.
Ensure controlled movement of high interest vessels.--High interest
vessels include any vessel that could be used as a weapon of mass
destruction and vessels carrying a large number of passengers (i.e.
Liquefied Natural Gas carriers, chemical tankers and cruise ships).
These vessels must be identified, and possibly boarded and inspected by
Coast Guard personnel well offshore before a possible threat could
cause harm to our Nation's ports or people. This budget supports 160
Sea Marshals for armed escort of High Interest Vessels and provides the
resources to increase on-the-water patrols for all 49 Captains of the
Port zones.
Enhance presence and response capabilities.--Increased presence has
great value as a deterrent and if a potential threat has been
identified, the Coast Guard needs the capability to detect, intercept
and interdict it, preferably on the high seas, using a layered defense
of major cutters, patrol boats, and maritime patrol aircraft. Such
action will effectively disrupt a terrorist's planned chain of events
and prevent a possible catastrophic terrorist attack well before it
threatens our shores. This budget completes building a total of 6
Maritime Safety & Security Teams with nearly 500 active duty personnel.
It will also add 26 more Port Security Response Boats and staffing for
small boat stations.
Protect critical infrastructure and enhance Coast Guard force
protection.--The Coast Guard must take measures to ensure protection of
our personnel, physical plant, and, consistent with the
Administration's Critical Infrastructure Protection Program,
information technology capabilities. The threats posed are wide and
varied, and require considerable actions to safeguard the Coast Guard's
people and resources. $51 million is requested for Anti-Terrorism/Force
Protection--with specific enhancements to physical infrastructure,
cyber-security, personal protective equipment, and firearms and
ammunition.
Increase domestic and international outreach.--Addressing security
risks in the maritime environment is an ``all-hands'' affair. It will
require partnerships and strategic relationships at home and abroad. To
help build this security network, the Coast Guard will require robust
security plans, including plans for commercial vessels, offshore
structures, and waterfront facilities. These plans will address access
control, credentialing of waterfront employees, and physical and other
security issues. Coast Guard Captains of the Port, in concert with all
other port stakeholders, will prepare anti-terrorism contingency plans.
All of these plans will be exercised periodically. The Coast Guard will
continue to work with the International Maritime Organization to align
international activities and improve security. The budget proposes 111
contingency response planners for worldwide seaport infrastructure
security.
restoring our readiness
We must also continue our multi-year, phased efforts to restore
readiness as we strive to establish equilibrium to sustain our ``new
normalcy.'' We must attend to traditional operations and perform
appropriate training, maintenance and administrative work, while
maintaining surge' capacity for emergency operations. We must ensure
adequate levels of training, maintenance, and other support resources
are in place to achieve the full measure of output from our ships,
aircraft, and shore facilities.
Search and Rescue (SAR).--The Coast Guard remains the sole
government agency that has the expertise, assets, and around the clock,
on-call readiness to conduct Search and Rescue operations in all areas
of the maritime environment. Through education, regulation, and
enforcement efforts, as well as SAR operations, the Coast Guard strives
to reduce fatalities, injuries and property loss at sea. Annually, the
Coast Guard responds to approximately 40,000 calls for assistance. In
fiscal year 2001, the Coast Guard saved over 84 percent of all mariners
in distress; over 4,100 lives.
The Coast Guard has undertaken a multi-year effort to improve our
readiness at our small boat stations where many of the search and
rescue cases take place. We added 67 personnel for back-up safety boat
crews and tower watches at our surf rescue stations in fiscal year
2001. This year the Coast Guard is adding nearly 200 personnel to small
boat stations and command centers. Additionally, we are opening a
formal school for training Boatswain's Mates and establishing traveling
small boat training teams, ensuring that our personnel have critical
skills required to successfully carry out search and rescue missions.
Personal protective clothing inventories have been enhanced to protect
our crews from the harsh environment. This effort continues in fiscal
year 2003 by adding another 174 personnel to our small boat stations to
reduce the work hour requirements and enhance the retention of our
front line personnel.
The National Distress & Response System Modernization Project
(NDRSMP).--In addition to adding personnel to our emergency response
system, we are making major commitments to the capital infrastructure
that enables effective safety and security response capability. The
Coast Guard is underway with a major re-capitalization of the Nation's
``Maritime 911 System.''
The National Distress & Response System Modernization Project will
update our 1970's technology to an integrated communications network
that will greatly increase detection and localization of distress
signals, eliminate known radio coverage gaps, and enhance Coast Guard
command and control capabilities across all mission areas, including
homeland security, on the Nation's inland and coastal waterways. This
budget will fund the initial installation of NDRS equipment and
networking at six of the Coast Guard's Group regions along the
Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific Coasts.
Human Capital.--Our personnel remain our organization's most
valuable resource. It is their hard work and dedication that have
enabled the Coast Guard to adapt to evolving missions and changing
operational environments. The Coast Guard's motto of Semper Paratus--
always ready--is more a statement of our people's mindset than of the
capabilities of our physical assets.
At his State of the Union address, President Bush emphasized the
commitment of men and women in uniform to provide for our Nation's
security and safety. He said, ``Our men and women in uniform deserve
the best weapons, the best equipment, the best training--and they also
deserve another pay raise.'' This budget reflects the President's
desires.
shaping our future
We must also plan the U.S. Coast Guard's future now. The ability to
anticipate and respond to new threats, risks, demands and opportunities
is critical to our success.
The Integrated Deepwater System.--Of the 39 Navies throughout the
world, the U.S. Coast Guard has one of the oldest. With great support
from the Department of Transportation and the Administration, we're
ready to move forward with our plans to recapitalize and upgrade our
deepwater assets. During his recent trip to Portland, Maine, President
Bush said we ``. . . must make sure our Coast Guard has a modern fleet
of vessels.'' Providing capability across all mission areas, our
Deepwater assets are vital to the layered defense and response for
Maritime Homeland Security. Deepwater is key to ensuring the Coast
Guard can continue to fulfill all our missions and essential in
providing a high level of ``maritime domain awareness.'' This budget
fully funds the first full year of $500 million for this critical
program.
conclusion
The President's fiscal year 2003 budget provides immediate
capability for our Homeland Security responsibilities and continues to
build upon past efforts to restore service readiness and shape the
Coast Guard's future. The budget also demonstrates unwavering support
for both the Deepwater project and National Distress and Response
System Modernization Project (NDRSMP). The end result of the
President's fiscal year 2003 budget will be a more capable Coast Guard
that is correctly positioned for transformation into the Coast Guard of
the 21st century.
I close with a quote from our Commander in Chief as he reflected on
the Coast Guard's efforts as of late. ``I saw how the Coast Guard has
responded after 9/11 and I know how important the Coast Guard is for
the safety and security and the well-being of our American citizens.
This is a fine group of people, who don't get nearly as much
appreciation from the American people as they should. And I'm here
today [Jan 25, 2002] to say thanks, on behalf of all the citizens who
appreciate the long hours you put in, the daring rescues you accomplish
and the fine service you provide to our country. Oh, yes, we're on
guard in America.''
Protecting our ports, waterways, and coastal regions, saving
mariners in distress, interdicting illegal migrant and seizing drugs,
or protecting our fisheries--With this budget the Coast Guard will be
there to answer the call. . .
Semper Paratus
STATEMENT OF HON. KENNETH M. MEAD
Senator Murray. Mr. Mead.
Mr. Mead. Thank you, Madam Chair, Senator Mikulski, Senator
Stevens. I want to start by saying that we have delivered to
the Majority and Minority our report of yesterday to the
Appropriations Committees and the Department's overall budget,
and so you have that for the record.
I also want to start out by saying that this is probably
the last hearing that I will be joining jointly with the
Commandant here, and I wanted to say on a personal note that I
have learned a lot from Admiral Loy. The country has a lot to
thank him for, and his leadership, and just speaking as the
Inspector General, it is always important in our relationships
with the agency heads that they be respectful of the
independence of the Inspector General, be solicitous of the
Inspector General's views, and responsive to the
recommendations, and I feel on every one of those counts that
Admiral Loy and the Coast Guard under his leadership should get
five stars, and I hope he goes on to serve the country in some
other capacity.
Now, to the testimony. As you recall, last year at this
time the big budget drivers were Deepwater, the Search and
Rescue Program, and the Distress System, and to maintain the
Coast Guard's core missions. We were not talking about beefing
up the security mission, and so this year you have the security
mission overlaying the Coast Guard's budget, and what I would
like to talk about today is the Coast Guard's overall budget
request, the Coast Guard's response to our search and rescue
report, which outlined deficiencies, the Deepwater capability,
the Deepwater capability replacement project.
NATIONAL DISTRESS SYSTEM
That is all the Coast Guard's assets that operate 50 miles
and out afloat and airborne, and as well as the overhaul of the
National Distress System. That is rather like a 911 system
where mariners in distress can call the Coast Guard and, of
course, it is inextricably intertwined with the search and
rescue program, so I think this is a real critical year for the
Coast Guard. It has got to take actions to adjust its missions
in the wake of 9/11, and it simultaneously has to serve all its
other missions, and simultaneously embark on what is the
largest and most expensive acquisition in its history.
At the same time it is doing this, it has to resolve
serious weaknesses in its Search and Rescue Program and begin
overhauling that National Distress System. We feel that the
Coast Guard is facing a number of big uncertainties about its
mission requirements, how it is going to execute major
acquisition projects, and control costs. We think the Coast
Guard is probably at a point where they ought to invest in a
cost accounting system, because you have a pretty big budget
plus-up, a lot of big endeavors moving out at the same time,
and you are going to want to know how much money is going to
each and what we are getting for it.
The Coast Guard's budget seeks an increase of $1.6 billion.
That will move the budget from $5.7 billion to $7.3 billion. I
think it is important to note, though, that really about three-
quarters of that budget increase is for retirement, pay
entitlements such as cost of living increases, and things of
that nature, and so you are really left with about a $500 or
$600 million actual increase.
The Coast Guard is striving to balance its missions for
fiscal 2003, and it plans to dedicate between 25 and 28 percent
of its resources to security and port safety. That is roughly
twice what the Coast Guard was applying to those areas last
year--that is, before 9/11--and it views the 2003 budget
request as the initial phase of a 3-year plan to enhance its
homeland security missions. What is not clear to us is if the
Coast Guard intends to request additional increases in 2004 and
2005 to support that plan.
SEARCH AND RESCUE
A second point concerns the Search and Rescue Program.
Admiral Loy is right, they have pulled together a plan that I
think is fairly robust. My staff was very impressed with it,
and we reported, of course, last year that the search and
rescue program was really in need of repair. It was declining
because it did not have enough qualified people. It did not
have a formal training program for its staff, and the equipment
was in a state of disrepair, so the Coast Guard has developed
this plan.
You provided a $14.5 billion plus-up, the budget request
another plus-up, and I think, as you all know, the Inspector
General has been directed to make a certification that that
money has been used to supplement, not supplant the baseline
expenditures that were being made in 2001 for search and
rescue.
You should know that the small boat stations, which are the
folks that do the search and rescue, are also doing port
security, and we have not been out on the audit trail since 9/
11 long enough to be able to quantify the extent to which they
are trying to mix those missions, but we do know that the
search and rescue people are operating--their operating tempo
for port security has gone way up, and if you will recall the
numbers I gave you last year on what they were performing just
for search and rescue, you wondered how they could fit any more
hours in the day.
NATIONAL DISTRESS AND RESPONSE MODERNIZATION
I would like to cover major acquisition projects. The Coast
Guard is approaching an important crossroads in the National
Distress and Response System Modernization and the Deepwater
capability projects. Both projects involve multiyear contracts.
They both have long-term funding requirements. The Coast Guard
expects to award contracts for both projects later this year.
The budget seeks about $590 million for those projects
combined.
There are some significant uncertainties in these projects
that I think you will have resolved, or you should expect to
have resolved later this year. For Deepwater, this is the
second year the Congress has been asked to appropriate money
for it without a detailed cost and schedule estimate, and that
is attributable to the procurement strategy they are following,
so that right now I cannot tell you exactly what assets will be
modernized or replaced and when, and at what cost. We should be
able to tell you that later this year, after the contractor is
selected, which I think is in the third quarter.
Also, last year at this time we thought that the time line
for the Deepwater acquisition would be 15 or 20 years. Now, we
are not sure that 15 or 20 years is solid, and it may go to 30
years, so we would like to know more about the time line for
that acquisition.
In the National Distress Response System, which I said is a
911 system for mariners in distress, I would like to use a
chart. Actually, this is the same chart I used last year. You
remember the little dots. The different colors on the dots just
indicate they are intended to signify the amount of nautical
miles that are areas off the coastline where people can call
911 for the Coast Guard and they will not get an answer.
I call them dead phones, or gaps, and the different colors
indicate, as I said, in different nautical miles--for example,
the red is 6,100 square nautical miles of gap. Where you have
the yellow up there in Alaska you have 800 or more square
nautical miles with lack of coverage, and the specifications
that the Coast Guard is now seeking for the National Distress
System will get rid of 90 percent of those dots. The problem is
that until they select a contractor, I cannot tell you which
dots are going to disappear.
Also, we are concerned about the repair time. Initially,
the specification was for a 6-hour repair time, and now the
specification seems to have crept up to 24 hours, which seems
like a long time to be in distress if you have to place a 911
call, but I do want to make clear to the committee that the
replacement of the National Distress System that the Coast
Guard is proposing is a vast improvement over what we have now,
but I would like to see all of those gaps or dead zones closed.
PREPARED STATEMENT
And I would like to see the repair time reduced very
substantially, and I understand if you have a hurricane you are
probably going to need 24 hours or more to replace those
antennas, but there are other reasons a system goes down, and I
think for the range of reasons that a system may go down, that
we really ought to reduce the time required to make repairs.
I think I will just proceed to Q and A's, if that is okay.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kenneth M. Mead
Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee: We appreciate the
opportunity to discuss Coast Guard's budget and management issues. We
have identified balancing Coast Guard's missions and budget needs in
light of post September 11 priorities as 1 of the top 10 management
challenges in the Department of Transportation.
The Coast Guard is seeking a significant increase in its budget to
be able to deal with an expanded security mission, perform its other
major missions, and proceed with an extraordinary set of important
major acquisitions. The budget will increase from $5.7 billion in
fiscal year 2002 to $7.3 billion in fiscal year 2003. There are
currently a number of uncertainties about Coast Guard mission
requirements, how it will execute major acquisition projects, and
control costs. Coast Guard needs an effective cost accounting system
that meets Federal accounting standards to provide a basis for
accurately measuring the costs of specific activities and making
decisions about where to apply resources.
My testimony today will address three areas.
First, the Budget Request for 2003.--Coast Guard is seeking an
increase of $1.6 billion for fiscal year 2003. The largest portion of
the increase is $736 million for a required payment to Coast Guard's
military retirement fund. Two other categories, operating expenses (up
by $733 million) and acquisitions (up by $92 million), account for most
of the remaining increase. The increase in Coast Guard's operating
capacity is not as large as the increase in operating expenses makes it
appear. About half of the operating expenses increase will pay for
entitlements and other inflationary adjustments and not add to
operating capacity. The other half of the increase will fund the
operation of new assets, such as seagoing buoy tenders and coastal
patrol boats, continue increased security operations begun after
September 11, and fund new security operations.
Immediately after September 11, Coast Guard devoted 58 percent of
its resources to port safety and security, while deployment to other
core missions fell. For fiscal year 2003, Coast Guard plans to dedicate
27 percent of its resources to port safety and security programs. This
is roughly twice the amount that Coast Guard planned to dedicate to
these missions for fiscal year 2002 prior to September 11. The relative
amount of resources Coast Guard plans to devote to drug interdiction
and fisheries enforcement in fiscal year 2003 is expected to decrease
from planed fiscal year 2002 levels. Coast Guard views its fiscal year
2003 budget request as the initial phase of a 3-year plan to enhance
its homeland security missions while still conducting other diverse
missions that remain national priorities. It is not clear to us if
Coast Guard intends to request additional increases in fiscal years
2004 and 2005 to support this plan.
Second, the Search and Rescue program.--Last year we reported that
the readiness of the Coast Guard's small boat station search and rescue
program was declining because it did not have sufficient numbers of
qualified personnel, a formal training program for key staff, and
equipment that was up to standards. Coast Guard developed a strategic
plan to improve readiness and the Congress provided $14.5 million for
fiscal year 2002 for added search and rescue program personnel and
equipment. We have been directed to audit Coast Guard's use of these
added funds and certify that the $14.5 million supplements and does not
supplant Coast Guard's level of effort in this area in fiscal year
2001. The fiscal year 2003 budget proposal seeks $22 million to follow
through on Search and Rescue program enhancements such as adding crew
members to the 47-foot motor life boats and procuring small search and
rescue boats.
Small boat stations are also playing a key role in port security
activities since September 11. More than half of all station hours are
devoted to port security, and operating tempo has increased
significantly. Given the emphasis on security missions, it is unclear
whether Coast Guard has implemented its plan to address the Search and
Rescue program deficiencies we identified. As part of our audit to
certify the use of fiscal year 2002 funds, we will determine the status
of Coast Guard actions to address the deficiencies identified in our
prior audit report.
Third, Major Acquisition Projects.--The fiscal year 2003 budget
seeks $590 million for Coast Guard's two largest acquisition projects,
the Deepwater Capability Replacement and the National Distress and
Response System Modernization. Both projects are critical to improving
Coast Guard's operations, but both also have significant uncertainties
that the Subcommittee should expect to see resolved this fiscal year.
--Deepwater.--This is the second year that the Congress is being
asked to appropriate procurement funding for the Deepwater
project without a detailed cost and schedule estimate. If the
Congress appropriates the $500 million Coast Guard is seeking
for 2003, it will have $790 million available for the
procurement phase of the project. Given the acquisition
approach that Coast Guard is using, reliable estimates that
describe what assets will be modernized or replaced, at what
cost, when that will occur, and when funding will be required,
will not be available until after a contractor is selected. The
selection is currently scheduled for the third quarter of
fiscal year 2002.
Another area of uncertainty is how long the project will take to
complete. Although Coast Guard originally stated this would be
a 20-year project, the request for proposals states that the
performance period for the contract could be up to 30 years. It
is not clear to us whether this means that (1) previously
planned annual funding levels will remain the same and result
in increased cost, or (2) the planned annual funding levels
will be spread out and reduce the level of funding required
each year.
--National Distress and Response System (NDS).--Coast Guard has
increased its estimate for the NDS project--the 911 system for
mariners in distress--from $300 million to $580 million and it
is seeking $90 million in the fiscal year 2003 budget to begin
procurement. If the Congress appropriates the $90 million Coast
Guard is seeking for fiscal year 2003, it will have $125
million available for the procurement phase of the project.
The current system has many deficiencies including more than 88
communication coverage gaps, totaling 21,490 square nautical
miles along the U.S. coastline where Coast Guard cannot hear
mariners. The revised system will provide a significant
improvement over the existing system.
However, we are concerned that Coast Guard reduced or eliminated
capabilities in the revised system that it initially considered
essential. This occurred because Coast Guard reduced
performance specifications after contractors estimated that a
system meeting Coast Guard requirements would cost more than $1
billion. As a result of the reduced performance specifications,
the revised system will still contain gaps in communication
coverage. Because the acquisition strategy being used on NDS is
following the same approach as that used on Deepwater, the
number, size, and location of the gaps will not be known until
a contractor's system is selected. Also, the time allowed to
restore critical functions, if the system becomes unavailable,
has been increased from 6 to 24 hours. However, at some time in
the future, Coast Guard may have to upgrade the system to
provide some or all of the capabilities that were to be
provided by the $1 billion system. We have recommended that
Coast Guard develop an acquisition plan that includes cost and
schedule estimates for upgrading the system to provide these
capabilities.
coast guard's budget request represents a 27.6 percent increase
Coast Guard's fiscal year 2003 budget request seeks an increase of
$1.6 billion or 27.6 percent over the fiscal year 2002 budget. As shown
in the following table, most of the increase is in three categories:
operating expenses; acquisition, construction, and improvements; and
military retirement fund payment.
COMPARISON OF COAST GUARD'S FISCAL YEAR 2002 BUDGET WITH ITS FISCAL YEAR 2003 BUDGET PROPOSAL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Fiscal year 2003
2002 enacted President's Change Percent change
budget
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating Expenses.............................. $3,902,679 $4,635,268 $732,589 18.8
Acquisition, Construction and Improvements 643,900 735,846 91,946 14.3
(AC&I).........................................
Environmental Compliance and Restoration........ 17,181 17,286 105 0.6
Alteration of Bridges........................... 15,466 0 -15,466 -100.0
Retired Pay..................................... 876,346 .............. .............. ..............
Coast Guard Military Retirement Fund............ .............. 889,000 12,654 1.4
Reserve Training................................ 100,251 112,825 12,574 12.5
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation...... 21,077 23,106 2,029 9.6
Oil Spill Recovery.............................. 61,200 61,200 0 0.0
Boating Safety.................................. 64,000 64,000 0 0.0
Gift Fund....................................... 80 80 0 0.0
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sub Total................................. 5,702,180 6,538,611 836,431 14.7
===============================================================
Payment to Coast Guard Military Retirement Fund. .............. 736,000 736,000 N/A
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................................... 5,702,180 7,274,611 1,572,431 27.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The increase includes approximately $736 million for payment to
Coast Guard's military retirement fund consistent with legislation
proposed in October 2001 by the Administration. The $736 million will
fund the future retirement benefits of current Coast Guard uniformed
personnel. The $889 million funding item in the above table for the
Coast Guard Military Retirement Fund finances payments to existing
retirees.
Acquisition funding would increase by $92 million (14 percent) to
$736 million. This includes $500 million for the Deepwater project, and
$90 million for the NDS project.
The fiscal year 2003 budget request seeks $4.6 billion for Coast
Guard operations, a $733 million (19 percent) increase over fiscal year
2002. About half of the increase will fund entitlements such as pay
raises, increased health care costs, and other inflationary
adjustments. The other half of the increase will fund the operation of
new assets (such as seagoing buoy tenders and coastal patrol boats),
continue increased security operations begun after September 11, and
fund new and enhanced operations including port security. Funding for
new security initiatives includes $48 million for marine safety and
security team; $19 million for maritime escorts and safety patrols; $60
million for enhanced communications, information, and investigations;
and $37 million for force protection.
the fiscal year 2003 budget seeks to balance current priorities with
coast guard's multiple missions
In response to the September 11 attacks, Coast Guard deployed 58
percent of its resources to port safety and security missions. These
resources included its fleet of rescue boats at small boat stations
around the country. The redeployment, however, came at the expense of
other important core missions. For example, resources deployed to drug
interdiction fell from approximately 18 percent to 7 percent. Other
missions such as fisheries enforcement, recreational boating safety,
aids to navigation, and migrant interdiction were also hard hit.
For fiscal year 2003, Coast Guard plans to use 27 percent of its
operating expense budget for port safety and security programs. This is
roughly twice the amount that Coast Guard planned to dedicate to these
missions for fiscal year 2002 prior to September 11. To help fund the
increased port safety and security program, Coast Guard will continue
reduced levels of activity in other missions such as drug interdiction
and fisheries enforcement. The following chart shows the resources
projected to be used for major missions during fiscal year 2003
compared to fiscal year 2002. Because the amount of operating funding
is different in each year, the change reflects the difference in the
relative amount of resources projected by mission.
U.S. COAST GUARD MISSION PROFILE--PERCENT OF PLANNED OPERATING EXPENSES BUDGET BY MAJOR PROGRAMS
[In percent]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Program -------------------------------- Change
2002 2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Programs Increased in fiscal year 2003:
Marine Safety............................................... ( \1\ ) 5 ( \2\ )
Ports, Waterways, and Coastal Security...................... ( \1\ ) 22 ( \2\ )
Aids to Navigation.......................................... 15 17 +2
Defense Readiness........................................... 2 3 +1
Programs Unchanged in fiscal year 2003: Search and Rescue....... 12 12 0
Programs Decreased in fiscal year 2003:
Ice Operations.............................................. 4 3 -1
Other Law Enforcement....................................... 3 2 -1
Migrant Interdiction........................................ 5 4 -1
Marine Environmental Protection............................. 11 8 -3
Living Marine Resources..................................... 16 11 -5
Drug Interdiction........................................... 18 13 -5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 14 percent combined in fiscal year 2002.
\2\ Plus 13 percent.
The Coast Guard is in the process of balancing its enhanced port
safety and security mission requirements with its other missions.
According to Coast Guard, the fiscal year 2003 budget request
represents the initial phase of a 3-year plan to address its needs. The
Coast Guard's goal is to enhance all of its homeland security missions
while still conducting other diverse missions that remain national
priorities. It is not clear to us if Coast Guard intends to request
additional increases in fiscal years 2004 and 2005 to support this
plan.
fiscal year 2003 budget continues efforts to address deficiencies in
the small boat station search and rescue program
Coast Guard's small boat station Search and Rescue program provides
the first line of response for mariners in distress. During fiscal year
2000, the 188 small boat stations responded to approximately 40,000
calls for help and saved over 3,300 lives.
As we reported to you last year, the small boat station Search and
Rescue (SAR) program was suffering from serious staffing, training, and
equipment problems that go back more than 20 years. Our findings were:
--staff shortages required personnel at 90 percent of the SAR
stations to work an average of 84 hours per week;
--high attrition rates among enlisted personnel were impacting
experience levels at small boat stations;
--70 percent of vacant positions at small boat stations were filled
with Coast Guard boot camp graduates with little or no training
in seamanship, piloting and navigation, small boat handling,
water survival, or search and rescue techniques;
--there was no formal training for boatswain's mates, who are key SAR
staff and one of the largest of the Coast Guard's enlisted job
specialties;
--84 percent of the standard rescue boat fleet inspected by the Coast
Guard in fiscal year 2000 were found to warrant a ``Not Ready
for Sea'' evaluation; and
--Coast Guard had not requested funding to replace or extend the
useful life of its 41-foot utility boat fleet, which is
reaching the end of its service life.
In response to our recommendations, Coast Guard initiated a multi-
year strategy to improve readiness at small boat stations. For example,
during fiscal year 2002, Coast Guard added 199 billets to support
station operations and is in the process of expanding training
opportunities for station boatswain's mates. In its fiscal year 2002
supplemental funding request, Coast Guard received an additional 54
billets and funding to purchase 18 port security boats to augment
station port security operations.
In DOT's fiscal year 2002 Appropriations Act, Congress directed
Coast Guard to use $14.5 million to add personnel, purchase personnel
protection equipment, and begin the process of replacing its aging 41-
foot utility boat fleet. We have been directed to audit and certify
that the $14.5 million supplements and does not supplant Coast Guard's
level of effort in this area in fiscal year 2001. The fiscal year 2003
budget proposal seeks $22 million to follow through on SAR program
enhancements, such as adding crew members to the 47-foot motor life
boats and procuring small search and rescue boats.
In December 2001, the Coast Guard briefed us on its strategic plan
for the small boat station SAR program. The plan identified actions to
address the deficiencies found during our audit by, for example, adding
personnel at stations to reduce the hours crew members are on duty and
to provide administrative support to station management, freeing up
management to train and certify crew members. Coast Guard also planned
to increase the number of coxswains receiving advanced training,
purchase personnel protection equipment for boat crews, and begin the
process of designing and procuring a replacement for the 41-foot
utility boat.
Since September 11, the operating tempo at small boat stations more
than doubled as they responded to support port safety and security
efforts while maintaining a successful search and rescue capability.
More than half of all station hours are now devoted to the port
security mission. In addition, Coast Guard called up reservists and
enlisted the Coast Guard auxiliary to support the port security
mission. This mission includes: enforcing security/safety zones around
high-risk vessels, oil/gas/chemical terminals, and power plants;
conducting harbor patrols; providing round-the-clock force protection
around U.S. Navy and Coast Guard vessels and facilities; escorting
high-risk vessels in and out of ports, and transporting sea marshals
and boarding teams to and from vessels. Given the emphasis on security,
it is unclear whether Coast Guard has implemented its plan to address
the SAR program deficiencies we identified. As part of our audit to
certify the use of fiscal year 2002 funds, we will determine the status
of Coast Guard actions to address the deficiencies identified in our
prior audit report.
acquisition, construction, and improvements budget provides a
significant funding increase for nds and deepwater
The fiscal year 2003 budget request seeks an acquisition funding
increase of $92 million (14 percent) to $736 million. The funding
request includes $90 million and $500 million for the NDS and Deepwater
projects, respectively. As proposed, the NDS and Deepwater projects
account for 80 percent of Coast Guard's capital budget for fiscal year
2003.
the nds project is likely to experience cost growth
The 30-year old National Distress System no longer supports Coast
Guard's short-range communication needs. System deficiencies, such as
communication coverage gaps and limited direction finding capabilities,
complicate Coast Guard's ability to effectively and efficiently perform
search and rescue missions. For example, at least 88 major
communication coverage gaps exist where Coast Guard cannot hear calls
from mariners in distress. Totaling about 21,500 square nautical miles,
the communication coverage gaps represent 14 percent of the total NDS
coverage area and range in size from 6 to more than 1,600 square
nautical miles.
Over the last 6 years, Congress appropriated $56 million for
planning the NDS project. In the planning phase, Coast Guard and its
technical support agent performed a significant amount of technical and
market research and worked directly with three contractors to design a
system that would meet Coast Guard's needs. During March 2001, each of
the contractors submitted a cost proposal that individually exceeded $1
billion--nearly three and a half times Coast Guard's $300 million
estimate.
When the contractors' cost estimates came in higher than expected,
Coast Guard revised the system's performance specifications to lower
the costs to an estimated $580 million. The proposed system will
provide significant improvement over the existing system. However,
Coast Guard eliminated or reduced capabilities in the $1 billion system
that Coast Guard originally considered essential to address
deficiencies in the existing system and to improve the SAR program
efficiencies. As currently designed the proposed system:
Contains communication coverage gaps, meaning Coast Guard will not
be able to hear and locate all mariners in distress even when they are
within the system's planned range of 20 nautical miles of shore. While
it is anticipated that the gaps will not be as large or as numerous as
the 88 gaps in the existing system, the exact size and location will
not be known until a contractor is selected later this year.
Cannot pinpoint the location of distressed mariners. The proposed
system will provide only the general direction of the distress call.
Compared to the $1 billion system, the revision has negatively impacted
Coast Guard's original project goal to take the ``search'' out of
search and rescue. Consequently, Coast Guard may have to perform other
investigative procedures and conduct wide-area searches to locate
distressed mariners.
Restoring system outages will take longer. In the proposed system,
the specified time allowed to restore critical system functions if they
become unavailable has been extended from 6 hours to 24 hours and full
system functions from 12 hours to 7 days. Coast Guard has no set
parameters for restoring critical functions if the existing system
becomes unavailable.
Reduced the capability to support an increased level of operations
during a national emergency or a natural disaster. Capabilities that
were eliminated, such as the ability to send classified information and
to talk with other agencies such as the Department of Defense, may be
necessary to support some Coast Guard homeland security activities.
While it is notable that Coast Guard has taken aggressive action to
reduce cost estimates for NDS, Coast Guard may have to restore
capabilities that were reduced or eliminated as the system is deployed
to meet operational requirements. This will not only increase the cost
of the NDS project, but will further compound Coast Guard's capital
acquisition challenge.
We have recommended that Coast Guard develop an acquisition plan
for approval of the Department prior to obligating any funds
appropriated for the procurement contract, which is anticipated to be
awarded in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2002. Coast Guard fully
concurred with our recommendation. However, given our concern over the
reduction in capabilities, we have since recommended that Coast Guard
ensure the acquisition plan also contains cost estimates and milestones
for adding the capabilities that were reduced or eliminated. In
addition, we recommended that the plan should identify how Coast Guard
intends to meet its short-range communication needs in response to its
increased homeland security mission.
uncertainties with the deepwater project should be resolved this year
The Deepwater project proposes to replace or modernize 209
aircraft, 92 vessels, and associated sensor, communications, and
navigation systems that are approaching the end of their useful life.
This project involves replacing or modernizing all of the Coast Guard
assets that are critical to missions that occur 50 miles or more
offshore, including drug interdiction, search and rescue, and migrant
interdiction.
This project is unusual not only because of its size, but also
because, if all goes as planned, it concentrates the responsibility for
project success with one contractor (called the Integrator) and
subcontractors extending over a planned period of at least 20 years.
Given this, the Coast Guard should expect a high level of scrutiny by
the Department and the Congress regarding this project.
The Congress supported the planning phase of the project by
appropriating about $117 million. The Coast Guard plans to replace its
Deepwater capability as an integrated system rather than a series of
distinct procurements. For example, instead of specifying that it wants
a medium endurance cutter or a long-range helicopter, Coast Guard
tasked three industry teams to propose vessels and aircraft that can
work together to meet mission needs more effectively. The planning
process has been comprehensive and provides Coast Guard a good basis
for identifying its needs and developing an acquisition strategy.
The Coast Guard is rapidly approaching an important crossroads with
respect to the Deepwater project. Although it previously planned to
award the Integrator contract in the second quarter of fiscal year
2002, Coast Guard has appropriately delayed the award to provide
additional time to further analyze industry proposals. The award is
currently scheduled for the end of the third quarter of fiscal year
2002. The award of the integrator contract will start the Coast Guard
moving forward on a course that is likely to be difficult and
potentially expensive to alter once funding has been committed and
contracts have been executed.
Coast Guard has not yet provided a reliable cost estimate for the
Deepwater project, but that should be resolved once the Integrator is
selected. The selection of the contractor will mark the beginning of
discussions and negotiations between the Coast Guard and the winning
contractor to devise the exact system the contractor will provide. It
is likely the final system will not be exactly what the contractor
proposed but will combine certain aspects from all three contractors'
proposals. Once the final system design and configuration is
determined, Coast Guard will be able to establish a cost estimate and
deliverable schedule.
Coast Guard received $290 million for the Deepwater procurement in
fiscal year 2002. If it receives the $500 million requested in fiscal
year 2003, Coast Guard will have $790 million available for the
procurement phase of the project. Although Coast Guard originally
thought this would be a 20-year project, the request for proposal
states that the performance period for the contract could be up to 30
years. It is not clear to us whether this means that (1) previously
planned annual funding levels will remain the same and result in
increased cost, or (2) the planned annual funding levels will be spread
out and reduce the level of funding required each year.
Madam Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be happy to
answer any questions the Subcommittee may have.
Senator Murray. Thank you, Admiral Loy and Mr. Mead. Before
we begin the question period, I will allow any of our committee
members to make opening statements. Senator Stevens.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. I join the Inspector
General in congratulating Admiral Loy for his period of time as
Commandant. I understand the time is coming close, unless he is
drafted to stay. I do not know if the President might do that,
but we have enjoyed working with you, Admiral, and Mr. Mead's
comments are well-taken as far as I am concerned.
My opening statement really is about homeland security,
homeland defense. We have rumors up our way of substantial
reductions in Coast Guard activities off Alaska because of the
demands of the contiguous 48 States and the increased demands
in terms of port security. I hope that that is not the case. We
still have half the coastline in the United States, and if you
look at the assets you have for half the coastline of the
United States, they are about one-twentieth of the rest of the
operation, even less than that.
But my real questions, when we get to questions, will be
about those reductions and about the role of the Coast Guard in
this new command we are hearing about, the Northern Command,
and whether or not you will be part of that, if you have been
consulted. I will save those questions for the question period,
Madam chairman, but I do think that those of us who are from
coastal States that have such heavy reliance on the Coast
Guard, of course we welcome the increased role of the Coast
Guard nationally and internationally, but I would not like to
see us be left behind in areas where the reliance on the Coast
Guard is so heavy, particularly in terms of safety and the
operation of vessels in the North Pacific, probably the worst
area of operation that you have as far as I am concerned.
But I do not know whether I can stay through the whole
period to ask some of those questions. If I do not, I would
like to be able to submit some questions to you to get on the
record what we might have to review as this budget moves
forward. I entirely support, as I said, the increased
modernization of the Coast Guard nationally, and hope that that
will trickle down to the area of law enforcement in the fishing
industry as well as assisting in the protection of the
extremely long coastline that we have as far as the difficulty
of maintaining tight control over our border.
You are going to have an enormous role, really, as this
future unfolds, and I am sure that this committee is going to
be deeply involved in it, but we would hope that we can get the
information from you that we need to make certain that we cover
all of your needs in these appropriations this year and
succeeding years. I think Mr. Mead's comments about future
years is extremely important. You do not build ships in 1 year.
We have to have some substantial commitments here if we are
going to proceed with allocations for an initial period of
construction and modernization and replacement of your vessels.
Thank you.
Senator Murray. Thank you. Senator Mikulski.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR BARBARA A. MIKULSKI
Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I
appreciate this courtesy. I have to leave around 11:00 for
another hearing.
First, Mr. Mead, I want to thank you very much for the
excellent testimony and the background material. I think one,
we love our Inspector Generals because they really do give us
guidance on how to improve management, and I think the issues
you raise in Deepwater are excellent issues, and we hope that
the Coast Guard will address them for the committee, so we know
we need Deepwater. We know we need the kind of accountability
timetables and outcomes that I think you are pressing for, so
thank you very much.
Admiral Loy, I wanted to come here today, also, not only to
talk about the Coast Guard's appropriation, but to talk about
the Coast Guard and talk about you. First of all, I really want
to thank you for just being you. You have provided leadership,
you have provided vision, and you have provided advocacy for
the Coast Guard while they out there doing a tremendous job,
and the Coast Guard motto, Semper Paratus, always prepared, you
have really been an advocate to see that they are.
I just want to thank you for your leadership, and I know
the men and women of the Coast Guard just will fall on a
propeller for you, so I just want to thank you, and also for
the Coast Guard. We in Maryland, of course, are forever
grateful to our Coast Guard, and what they do in search and
rescue, port security, even before September 11, and our
environmental protection.
Since September 11 we have watched this operations tempo
really increase in the bay and at the port, and we know you
cannot do this with three people and two Zodiacs, and just the
stress on personnel and the stress on the vessels that we have
I think shows that the funding for the Coast Guard is, indeed,
spartan, and I use only the bay because we appreciate the 24-7
that the Coast Guard always does even before September 11, so
it is not like they got a new job. Their intensity of their job
increased.
I note that your appropriations of 7.3 includes a $700
million request for pensions. That is great, because we need to
be able to have good pay, good health care, and good pensions
to be able to recruit and retain people, but Madam Chairwoman,
I am really concerned about the Coast Guard. I mean, if they
get close to $1 billion, but only $500 million is really for
what they need in terms of the Coast Guard mission, and $700
million is into a pension, I think that is really not what the
Coast Guard needs.
I just bring to the chairperson's attention this is roughly
the same money we spent on EPA. EPA is worth every nickel of
what we spend, and I know some might raise some flashing yellow
lights about EPA, but I think the Coast Guard in my mind is a
$10 billion operation. I do not know where we are going to get
the money, but the Coast Guard is the vital link in homeland
security. You are, along with INS, the protector of our
borders.
The INS is to protect and make sure bad people do not come
into our country, but you have got to make sure not only bad
people and bad things do not come into our country, and that
bad things do not happen to our country. I do not see--no
matter how diligent, no matter how duty-driven, no matter how
resourceful and creative the Coast Guard is, they cannot really
do this, and I would hope that we could in our talks with
Governor Ridge and the President, I know we have got this for
this year, and we have to make the best of what we can, but I
would hope that within the next 3 years, that we really press
the President to really give us the robust funding because of
the competing needs of this committee.
So you might be underfunded, but you are not undervalued,
and I just want to be able to say that, and I am going to do
everything I can to help the committee keep the President's
budget and see if we cannot find ways to add to it. Knowing the
great stresses that are in your committee and, I must say, in
mine--mine is pretty flat-funded--do you think we could get
some money out of Defense?
Particularly for some of the homeland security issues. But
thank you, and again, many, many thanks, and Godspeed, Admiral
Loy.
Admiral Loy. Thank you, Senator Mikulski, for your support.
Senator Murray. Thank you, Senator.
OPERATING TEMPO OF SEARCH AND RESCUE STATIONS
Admiral Loy, I am going to start with you. In the
Transportation bill for 2002 this subcommittee more than
doubled the Coast Guard funding request to improve training and
staffing at your overtaxed small boat stations. We were, in
fact, responding in part to Mr. Mead's observation that
personnel at these stations were overworked, averaging 84-hour
work weeks.
Mr. Mead's testimony today indicates that the operating
tempo at these small boat stations has increased by 200 percent
since September 11, and the added stress may undermine our
efforts to improve training and work hours of these Coast Guard
units. How are these units handling this 200 percent increase
in workload?
Admiral Loy. I would have to look at the numbers to find
out what Ken means by the 200 percent, but let me be very clear
that post 9/11 the port security obligations that have come
upon the organization have added to the workload, there is
simply no doubt about it.
I would like to have the characterization of those stations
be multimission Coast Guard stations, not SAR stations. It is
not like those stations on 10 September and before were
exclusively doing search and rescue and nothing else, so the
multimission character of all of our stations is real, and that
is probably worth getting on the table so that we do not go
from zero to 100 percent kind of shifting.
RESERVE RECALL
First and foremost, the reserve call-up opportunity was
absolutely mandatory for us. The first call I had on 11
September was to Secretary Mineta, who was already in the
basement of the White House with the Vice President sorting out
how they were going to get airplanes out of the air, and he
gave me verbally over the phone the authority to call up our
reserves and, as you know, Secretary Mineta has domestic call-
up authority, does not have to wait for the presidential call-
up associated with the mobilization, and so instantly we were
able to get a full third of the selected reserve of the Coast
Guard on active duty and augmenting the stations to help them
with that OPTEMPO issue.
The second thing is, we just shifted gears, Madam Chairman,
in terms of what our people woke up to, a normal profile, if
you will, on a traditional mission allocation process on 10
September. I was able to call the Area Commanders and they in
turn called their down-the-chain District Commanders and
Station Commanding Officers and said, ``take a left and go to
port security.''
Now, we always have search and rescue as an interrupt
demand mission that, in the event something occurs in a search
and rescue environment, we always go there, but the first order
of business then was to shift gears and deal with port
security.
Senator Murray. When Mr. Mead gave his testimony, he said
he has not had enough people out to check and audit some of the
conditions of the small boat stations. When he does, do you
think he will see any improvement in training or experience or
workload?
Admiral Loy. Yes, ma'am. We have developed a 5-year game
plan in which 2003 will be the 3 year to stand up these
adjusted challenges that you offered us last year, and others
as well; through Mr. Mead's audit. We have invested in
staffing, we have invested in standing up training courses, we
have invested in simple command center staffing and station
staffing, about 200 bodies, if you will, in the 2002 budget,
about another 200 bodies in the 2003 budget, and systematically
we will gain that level of adequate OPTEMPO standard that we
talked so much about last year, so he will find committed to
the active force a combination of reservist and auxiliarist who
unbelievably have volunteered thousands and thousands of hours
to help those young people on active duty do what they needed
to do across this period.
SMALL BOAT STATION AUDITS
Senator Murray. Mr. Mead, what do you expect to see when
you go out to do those audits?
Mr. Mead. I hope to see real, substantial improvement, and
you know, when we did our last audit we developed a lot of
baseline data on operating hours that were devoted to search
and rescue, and we will be able to use that baseline data to
compare what is going on now, so what we will do and what we
will report back to you, you have asked us to certify the extra
money that the Congress gave the Coast Guard for this function
was not being used to supplant, but in addition, because of the
points that Admiral Loy raised, that there is some certain
flexibility of the missions.
We are going to go out and see exactly, substantively what
is different. Has there really been core improvement in the
hours these people are spending? Are they really getting
trained, and are the boats they use, is the percentage of boats
that were judged not ready--which was a substantial
percentage--decreased?
I think we will have--we will not have to wait till the end
of the fiscal year to get that information to you.
Senator Murray. I look forward to hearing from you as you
gather that information.
STATUS OF COAST GUARD'S TRADITIONAL MISSIONS
Admiral Loy, I am really disturbed by the fact that even
with this historic funding increase that has been proposed for
the Coast Guard for next year your level of effort in the area
of marine safety, fisheries enforcement and drug interdiction
are expected either to stay the same or diminish even further,
and this comes at a time when you are not achieving your
performance goals for interdicting drugs or keeping illegal
fishing vessels out of U.S. waters. Has the amount of
assistance you got from the Department of Defense to conduct
maritime drug interdiction been reduced as a result of the war
in Afghanistan and other operations?
Admiral Loy. To answer your last question first, Madam
Chairman, there has been a relatively consistent contribution
from the afloat community in the Navy with respect to on-scene
ship days, and less so in the maritime patrol aircraft, which
have, in fact been, if you will, almost recalled, if not State-
side for the things they are doing here, to their deployments
overseas.
My concern is that the changes, the things that brought DOD
into the drug game in 1989 with the DOD authorization act, the
requirement to fuse intelligence, the requirement to do
detection and monitoring, to be the lead agency for detection
and monitoring, those things have not changed appreciably in
the 10 years that have gone by, so any kind of a loss of those
assets in that mission will be a detraction from our ability to
get the job done collectively.
I also wear the hat, as you know, as the Interdiction
Coordinator for the country, for Mr. Walters, who just sat down
in his chair, and I must reflect concern as to the impressions
that I have seen, little red flags, if you will, going up that
suggest perhaps walking away from the drug mission is part of
the game plan in the Department of Defense.
We will watch that very carefully, and we will aggressively
challenge the continuation of the assets we need in that field.
COAST GUARD'S NEW NORMALCY
Senator Murray. Very good. Is this committee just going to
have to accept the notion that New Normalcy for the Coast Guard
means that we have a diminished effort in its core missions for
marine safety and fisheries enforcement and drug interdiction?
Admiral Loy. I think there is an opportunity, Madam
Chairman, if I may answer a couple of questions, including
those from Senator Stevens here, 2003 will be the first of a 3-
year game plan that will allow the Coast Guard to grow to
provide its contribution to the New Normalcy you just
described, and the New Normalcy is this.
On 10 September we were spending maybe 2 percent of our
budgeting capability on port security, focused activity. By 15
or 18 or 19, the chart that Senator Shelby showed, we had
committed probably 50 percent or more of our budgeted
capability directly to port security, because we did exactly
what his chart showed. We brought things from doing other
mission areas.
Now, first of all, as I said earlier, I think that should
be seen as an enormous strength this organization brings to the
country. When a crisis is here, we go there. We have SAR
instincts as an organization. We surge to that 50 percent
level, and ever since we have been backing off to find out what
the New Normalcy is in the immediate area of port security so
as to be quite clear as to what the degradation might be in the
other missions of the organization.
These pie charts, Madam Chairman, show the large orange
section in the sort of southwest quadrant, if you will, all the
way to the right is the devotion we feel now appropriate to
ports, waterways, and coastal security for the 2003 budget. And
if you go around the circle you will see, with the exception of
constant program strength missions like search and rescue and
aids to navigation.
Senator Murray. I have to admit, it is a little hard to
read from right here.
Admiral Loy. There is a copy in your folder. You will see
small percentage drops in counterdrug effort, in fisheries
enforcement effort in alien migration effort, and in the other
wedges of our mission profile, to allow us to concentrate on
this new priority 1, if you will, for the Nation.
Over the course of that 3-year build, we will rebuild the
organization's strength, head count capability to not only do
the new maritime security challenge, but to return in full
scope to the other missions that you were referring to.
Senator Murray. Can you explain to me why, in the first
year of the 3-year game plan, you talked about the level of
effort in these core missions going down?
Admiral Loy. Because we are literally having to borrow some
energy, if you will, from them in order to do year 1 of the New
Normalcy, which is an almost 20 percent increase in that ports,
waterways, and coastal security mission.
17TH COAST GUARD DISTRICT
Senator Murray. Senator Stevens.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. Admiral, let me first
go to the 17th District. With the increase you are getting
overall, is the effort in the 17th District going to be
reduced?
Admiral Loy. The standards that we are challenged with in
the 17th, Senator Stevens, are pretty constant, because it is a
search and rescue requirement as well as a fisheries
enforcement requirement that is met by those cutters off-shore
in the Gulf of Alaska and the Bering Sea, so pretty much for
the Pacific Northwest I will say from Northern California to
the north our asset deployment profile will be essentially the
same.
Senator Stevens. While they are going up everywhere else,
right?
Admiral Loy. We are able to borrow, if you will, fisheries
enforcement capability--no, sir, they are not going up
everywhere else, if you mean fisheries enforcement and
counterdrug activity. The only thing that is going up, quote-
unquote, is our attention to port security as the Nation's
number 1 responsibility.
Senator Stevens. The 17th District is really flat, and your
overall budget is going up 200 plus million. Will any of that
modernization money seep into this district?
Admiral Loy. Sir, the modernization money will seep into
all corners of the Nation, including Alaska, of course. When
Deepwater water comes of age, the cutters that go to Alaskan
waters will be new, modern cutters. When the aircraft come of
age out of Deepwater they will go not only to Alaska, but
everywhere else in terms of increased capability around the
Nation.
Unless I am misunderstanding your question, sir, our
investment in those projects, NDRSMP and Deepwater, is constant
across the board.
Senator Stevens. I am really talking about the operational
level and the enforcement level and the basic level in the
North Pacific, and what is going to happen to it. There is a
great feeling out there, and I am hearing it from lots of
sources, that the level of operations, the tempo of operations
in the North Pacific is going down, and yet the effort, the
fishing effort there is not going down.
As a matter of fact, because of the marvelous management of
that resource, the harvesting continues to go up every year. A
substantial portion of our seafood is coming from the North
Pacific now, and I do not see any reflection of that in terms
of operations of the Coast Guard, where our operation level is
going down.
Admiral Loy. In the immediate wake of 9/11, as we surged
away from those enormously important missions to meet the new
number 1 priority of port security, clearly all around the
Nation we borrowed cutter days and aircraft hours in order to
make sure we were going to get the port security thing right.
We have since--a month or two went by after 9/11--been
gradually restoring the capability of the organization to do
fisheries enforcement, but in the fiscal year 2003, given the
President's request, our concentration on port security will
require, at least, a level of effort adjustment from our other
significant mission areas in order to concentrate on the first
year of a building process to gather the Coast Guard's
wherewithal to do port security at its new higher level, as
well as return fully to the 100 percent levels of our other
mission areas.
The supplemental, for example, restored a budget line item
that said, reduce the operational capability of the
organization by 15 percent. Among other things, the
supplemental has enabled us to go back to a 100 percent
capability of the organization and use it around the country,
and that has all been annualized in the President's request for
2003.
Senator Stevens. As I said, I do not know of an officer I
have more confidence in than you, Admiral, but when I look at
this budget, headquarters office is going up from $234 million
to $371 million, headquarters managed units going up from $62
million to $102 million. The basic functions of the system, if
you look down each one of the districts, has an increase,
fairly substantial increase, except for the 17th. It is flat.
It is flat right across the board.
Admiral Loy. Let me look at that, Senator Stevens. I owe
you a good answer, and I do not have it with me this morning. I
will get back to you.
C-130 AIRCRAFT
Senator Stevens. We put money in for the C-130's, and
really I think it was the 2000 supplemental. What has happened
to that money? I noticed--is there an error in your layout that
that is not--I am told that that 5-year capital plan does not
show the $30.5 million that was in the capital plan for last
year.
Admiral Loy. Sir, with respect to the J models that were
funded in the fiscal 2001 Military Construction bill, as I
recall, Senator Stevens, this is where we are with that
project. $468 million was appropriated for six of those assets.
First and foremost, we had a contract with the Air Force in
December of 2000 that enabled us to procure the six airframes
that were part of that buy.
There is about $110 million, as I recall, left from that
Military Construction bill. We are using that to develop the
notions associated with workforce front end analysis, Coast
Guard requirements to the aircraft in terms of modifying it,
interim maintenance, et cetera. We probably are short about a
$200 million AC&I requirement in order to finish off the
procurement of those particular airframes.
I think as a matter of fact I and Mr. Jackson, the Deputy
Secretary, have been trying to arrange an opportunity to sit
down with you and Congressman Young to sort out precisely what
we should be doing with the J contract as it relates to the
immediate future, so we owe you a good conversation, Senator
Stevens. We will be trying to arrange that.
Senator Stevens. I would like to pursue that. That is
really related to the drug enforcement effort, it sort of seems
to me by the pie chart, sort of being softened a little bit,
and out of necessity, I take it.
Admiral Loy. Yes, sir. We have been trying to get back to
chat with you and Mr. Young about it, who has sent us a piece
of correspondence on the same issues, sir.
COAST GUARD RECRUITING AND REINLISTMENT
Senator Stevens. If I could ask one last question, Madam
Chairman, what about recruitment? How is your recruitment? How
does this compare now to last year at this time, and has it
been impacted at all by the attacks on our Nation?
Admiral Loy. We have been watching for a bump, sir, and we
actually went back and did some exploration about the same kind
of a period before and after crises that the Nation has faced
in the past. We have not seen a patriotic bump in recruiting,
nor have the other four services, to my knowledge, and I have
asked my personnel human resources guy to be touching bases
with the other services, but recruitment in general, sir, we
are doing okay.
I think it is the nature of the other kinds of things that
the Coast Guard does, in addition to national security
requirement kind of business, that attracts an awful lot of
very terrific young Americans, so we are doing fine with
recruitment. We are not seeing any kind of a bump.
Senator Stevens. The flip side of that coin is
reenlistment. How is that? Is it up or down?
Admiral Loy. We are about even at the moment, and we are
expecting, as a result of what this Congress and the past
several have concentrated on in terms of pay raises and health
care adjustments and retention--I am sorry, retirement
adjustments, we are expecting probably about a 5 percent
positive tick up as it relates to our retention in fiscal 2002,
and we are watching that very carefully, Senator Stevens,
because all of this recruiting and retention issue, I have
always been infinitely more concerned about retention than I
have about recruiting, and the experience drain that the last 5
years or so of the nineties represented to all of the services
was very, very real, but it looks like we are going to have a
small come-back in 2002, sir.
Senator Stevens. Would you permit me just one last
question?
Senator Murray. Absolutely.
Senator Stevens. Are we allocating enough money in the
Coast Guard for recruiting and retention, Mr. Mead?
Mr. Mead. I think you could always argue for a little bit
more for that, frankly. I think there are some major unsettled
areas in the Coast Guard's budget, and that is one of them, and
I am most concerned, though, not with the recruitment and
retention element. I am most concerned with these two large
acquisitions and how much they are going to end up costing, and
what they will actually be for, what their time line is going
to be, and what the implications of that will be on other
missions and other activities such as in the 17th District.
Senator Stevens. It is not just the Coast Guard. They think
we have been pushing money at modernization and acquisition
and, as Congress does it, I do not think we have looked down
the line at the requirement of people to man increased number
of vessels, planes, et cetera.
I do not think we have really been fair with you in terms
of anticipating the needs of the expanded Coast Guard or Air
Force, whatever. I am worried about our reenlistment rates,
particularly in the area of pilots, and I am worried about the
training rates in terms of people for these new activities,
particularly in the area of port security. We cannot continue
to borrow. When you borrow from an area like ours, you have to
pay it back. We need replacements in the system to do that.
Admiral Loy. Yes, sir. Your comments are right on target.
There are probably three specialty areas that we have been
watching with some concerned, fixed wing pilots, naval
engineers, and anybody with an IT kind of a background,
especially, as I said, in the last 5 or 6 years.
The notion that the grass was always greener in the strong
economy of the late nineties was driving a lot of people to
make those kinds of judgments, but I think even--you never want
to look for a silver lining in a dark cloud, but if there is
one with respect to with a softening of the economy, a lot of
people are making those judgments a lot more methodically today
and staying in the service as opposed to leaving, and we are
going to look for that, and I think we are going to get about a
5 percent positive tick in 2002 in our retention, sir.
Senator Stevens. I would like to tie some of the
educational aid money to some service and uniform as we expand
that. We have got to look somehow at giving a little better
push to people to sign up.
Admiral Loy. Yes, sir. The other thing with respect to the
Deepwater project, we have had, looking over the shoulder of
the project designers from the very beginning, the workforce
implications of the project, so as it relates to competencies
and skill sets and all of that, we are very attentive to what
we will need in the future workforce in the Coast Guard 20
years from now, 15 years from now, 10 years from now, as we
watch our Deepwater assets come online.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam
Chairman.
DEEPWATER PROCUREMENT STRATEGY
Senator Murray. Mr. Mead, you alluded a moment ago to the
Deepwater program, and you have done a major assessment of
that. Prior to September 11 this program was considered to be a
priority initiative to replace the Coast Guard's aging assets
that operate in the deep water environment. Since September 11,
the Deepwater program has suddenly been transformed into a
priority for port security and homeland defense in the coastal
environment. Do you think the Coast Guard should revisit its
Deepwater procurement strategy in the wake of September 11?
Mr. Mead. No, I would not revisit the strategy. They have
been on this strategy for several years now, and what you
really need--I think that bottom line on this is, you need to
know how much the Deepwater project is going to cost, what it
is going to buy and when, and how long of a time line it is
going to operate on.
I think the acquisition strategy of trying to get three big
contractors to give a proposal for the contract was sound, and
a lot of people have thought, including us, that that was
fairly innovative. The down side is that, unlike a traditional
acquisition, you do not know how much exactly it is going to
cost, or what it is going to buy, until they select a
contractor. I am really--I am nervous about the time line here,
and when I look at the Coast Guard's capital plan and the time
line for Deepwater, the floor on it is about $10 billion. Is
that $10 billion going to be spread out over 15 years, 20
years, 30 years, or is the project actually going to cost
substantially more than that?
If you look at the 5-year capital plan, in the years 2004
and 2005, the capital plan allocates zero to shore facilities,
and I expect the Coast Guard is going to probably need more
than zero for their shore facilities during those years. Aids
to Navigation is another, and homeland security, I do not think
all of the cards are in on how much the Coast Guard is going to
have to apply to that area.
I mean, there has really been not that many months since 9/
11, and 9/11 was in many ways a case of first impression for
the Coast Guard. The same comments apply to the National
Distress System project, although to a lesser degree. Frankly,
I think on some of the issues we mentioned, I think the Coast
Guard should reflect on whether that 10 percent coverage gap
ought to somehow be covered, and if the repair time ought to be
decreased, that will cost money.
Now, do we do that, do we plan for that now, or do we wait
3 or 4 years and say, well, now we want to fix it?
Senator Murray. Well, Admiral Loy, last year the head of
the Deepwater program, Rear Admiral Stillman, committed to us
that by the time we marked up the appropriations bill this year
he would be able to tell us precisely what we would be funding,
and his words were, line by line and dime by dime.
It appears that you have slipped your Deepwater contract
until the third quarter now, and as a result you are asking us
to appropriate $500 million into a black hole, the precise
problem that Rear Admiral Stillman said would not happen again.
What has led to this delay in your awarding of the Deepwater
procurement contract?
Admiral Loy. Thank you, Madam Chairman, for asking that
question. A number of things here. First of all, we can give
you three versions of line by line and dime for dime today. It
would have to be a proprietary brief so as to allow the
competitiveness of the procurement to continue along that line,
and so we can offer--and I think we have already spent a little
bit of time with Mr. Rogoff--a proprietary brief that offers
very, very good insight as to the specific assets that would be
part of each of the proposals that are currently being scrubbed
by our team, and then when we award the contract we will be
able to do, line for line and dime for dime, the winner as it
proceeds out over time.
So the point, and I am sure what Rear Admiral Stillman
meant to say, is that--and he is absolutely right on target--if
the timing of the hearing season would have been attendant to
the expectant April award that we had on schedule as he
testified last year, or as he spoke with you last year, we
would have been doing exactly what he explained.
Our notion at the moment is that several things crept into
that calendar. The first was the insistence by OMB that yet
another independent review be undertaken, which was, in fact,
accomplished by ASI. Secondly, I personally said I want at
least 30 more days in the source selection scrubbing process,
because we are facing a 20-year effort here, a multibillion
effort for our organization, and whatever the little delay up
front a month is, is worth it to make absolutely certain that
we cross all the T's and dot all the I's and get it right.
So I think there is a very easy and solid explanation for
the delay as it relates to a post 9/11 implication. Deepwater
is infinitely more important to us on 9/12 than it was on 9/10,
because what it will bring to the table with respect to its
focus on C4ISR is interoperability, is capability, is
modernized assets now rather than later, that will, in fact,
have everything to do with adequate maritime security and the
return to the mission areas that both you and Senator Stevens
and others have discussed.
IDS was developed, interestingly enough, anticipating
asymmetric threats. It is all about the simple mission task
sequence we do for everything else. We surveil, detect,
classify, identify, and prosecute. We do that in search and
rescue, we do that in counterdrug, we do it in fish, we do that
in maritime security, so the soundness of the strategy that was
used to develop IDS is absolutely right on target for the post
9/11 environment, Madam Chairman. It only strengthens the
requirement that this program is absolutely needed now, and
must go forward, as Senator Stevens inferred.
Senator Murray. I am looking forward to seeing your dime-
by-dime report.
Admiral Loy. We can arrange a proprietary brief now, ma'am,
or if you prefer to wait until the contract is awarded.
Senator Murray. You already have $300 million. You are
asking for $500 million more and the mission has changed, and
we just want to make sure we know what the money is going for.
Admiral Loy. Absolutely.
NATIONAL DISTRESS SYSTEM AUDIT
Senator Murray. Mr. Mead, you just completed an audit on
the Coast Guard's plan to modernize the National Distress and
Response System. You talked a little bit about that. You said
that the Coast Guard has eliminated important, critically
important capabilities from their proposed new system in order
to bring the cost of the system under control.
Admiral Loy, how do you respond to Mr. Mead's observation
that you have dumbed-down the system and eliminated the
capability to pinpoint the location of distressed boaters?
Admiral Loy. I think the notion here is this. In phase 1 of
the contract, of the project, I am sorry, it was enormously
important for us to get the full spectrum of what 100 percent
would cost us, and what would the capability get that we paid
for, and at lesser levels. When last year we were testifying,
Mr. Mead was discussing the billion-dollar-plus proposals that
were coming back from the three contractors involved with the
NDRSMP contract.
We looked for and challenged each of them to show us where
the step functions were that would offer us considerable
savings for either less capability, what might be less
reliability, what might be less recovery time to downed tower,
or what might be even less coverage. We looked at those very,
very carefully, and selected those.
In terms of the hard specs that went out with the RFP just
last week, that would make good cost-effective benefit-to-cost
decisions in favor of the project. For example, with respect to
reliability, if we pushed a .9995 insistence on reliability, as
opposed to .995--three 9's and a 5, instead of two 9's and a
5--we could spend an extra $100 million for the program. I did
not think that was a smart thing to do, in a benefit-to-cost
analytical read, and so we chose to adjust that specification
in the RFP to not spend that $100 million.
The same thing has to do with system restoration, the
notion to be able to restore it in 6 hours as opposed to 24
hours. We saved about $100 million in that, we guess, or we
think, by shifting to the 24-hour standard. The 6 would require
us to literally have aircraft available on alert to carry
people to those sites to restore the towers.
Senator Murray. Will this pose risks to mariners that are
out there?
Admiral Loy. I think the risk to the mariner is
infinitesimally small compared to the value we get out of the
system. We are now asking for--the 24-hour system, first of
all, affords us the chance to simply have the contractor
construct portable towers and be able to get those portable
towers to the replacement towers in a 24-hour window.
Senator Murray. I think it was Mr. Mead who said in his
testimony in a hurricane it is one thing, but during other
circumstances, can't it be done in 6 hours?
Admiral Loy. It will be done in between 6 and 24 hours.
This 24 hours will be the standard we insist it be done within,
but my notion is that to adjust the taxpayer's price tag for
this system and to eliminate as many dots as we possibly can
off of Ken's chart, we are serving the taxpayer well by
accepting a business standard, if you will, with respect to the
6 and 24 issue, and the same thing then goes to the coverage
gaps, Madam Chairman.
We could build 300 more towers and cost another, between
$200 and $300 million to the program, and eliminate all of the
dots on Ken's chart. My notion again is, we should be
selective, and we always will have the opportunity in the wake
of the project as it comes online to test it, see exactly what
it is and tweak it for what it is worth.
What we should be concentrating on is the great positive
that is going to accrue from this project, and I have a simple
chart----
Senator Murray. Admiral, I would agree with you, but the
last mile is always the most expensive, and when you do not
eliminate all the dots, I sometimes worry the most remote areas
where distress can be the most acute will be the ones we do not
reach.
Admiral Loy. And we will have to make those marginal
judgments, Madam Chairman, I could not agree with you more, but
to build a $1 billion-plus system where you can gain
reliability coverage and the other dimensions we sought that I
think are perfectly adequate to the challenge, we should be as
cost-conscious as well as performance-conscious as we are going
to be in this project.
Senator Murray. According to the IG audit that I saw, you
eliminated the capability to transfer classified information as
a part of the system.
Admiral Loy. Absolutely not. We have the ability to
transfer classified information, the capabilities in the system
with respect to direction-finding multichannel communications
capabilities. I would be happy to offer, Madam Chairman, a
briefing for you.
Senator Murray. The IG audit said that is true, and they
also said you reduced your ability to talk to other fellow
State agencies, including the DOD.
Admiral Loy. The communications capabilities and the
requirements in the RFP that went on the street last week
remain intact, Madam Chairman.
Senator Murray. Mr. Mead.
Mr. Mead. We will stand by what we said in our report, and
we will get together with Admiral Loy to reconcile what the
differences are.
Senator Murray. I look forward to hearing from both of you
after that.
Mr. Mead. I think we all know that if, after this system is
up, if a mariner in distress is caught up in one of these dead
zones, guaranteed, we will come back and say, why didn't we
close that.
Senator Murray. I cannot agree more, and invariably it will
be somebody on this committee who will be representing that.
Admiral Loy. But that will cost us another $500 million,
and we just need to understand that.
Senator Murray. I thought that was the central purpose of
the replacement to make sure we covered those gaps. You know,
we have a system out there right now. What we have is gaps. I
thought we were eliminating the gaps.
Admiral Loy. We are trying very hard to eliminate as many
of the gaps as possible, yes, ma'am.
Senator Murray. That is the committee's concern.
Admiral Loy. To go on, I think our challenges are going to
be less about money, Madam Chairman, and more about things like
property acquisition in terms of where we want to put a tower.
If we need a tower in the Everglades, if we do need a tower in
places--one of the Congressmen from Massachusetts has reflected
on Mr. Mead's report and wondered about property in Chatham.
Well, if we need property in Chatham with respect to a tower,
that will be more a hurdle for us to get over, I am convinced
that the dollars that the Congress and the administration are
willing to spend on this project. That is going to be, I
think----
Senator Murray. The problem, is that when we are asked for
and appropriate the numbers for the NDRSMP we were told that it
would eliminate the gaps. That is the expectation.
Admiral Loy. Yes, ma'am, and I owe you a very, very good
read, am I able to do that at the 100 percent level, or am I
able to do that at the 99 percent level, and where would the
resultant 1 percent be.
Senator Murray. We need to know where that 1 percent would
be. If it is on a mountain in the middle of the country, I am
not worried.
CAPITAL BUDGET CONSTRAINTS
Let me move on. Mr. Mead, in your audit, you discussed how
the combination of the Deepwater program and the National
Distress and Response Program runs the risk of crowding out
other critical Coast Guard procurements, including procurements
necessary for Search and Rescue.
In the 2002 Appropriations Act, we prohibited the Coast
Guard from going forward with the Deepwater Integration
contract until the Director of OMB and the Secretary of
Transportation certified to us in writing that Coast Guard's
capital investment plan and OMB's budget targets fully
incorporates the needs of the Deepwater program, the National
Distress and Response System, and other essential Search and
Rescue procurements. Based upon your audit, do you believe that
the OMB Director and the Transportation Secretary can
legitimately certify to us that they have budgeted adequate
funding to finance all of these needs?
Mr. Mead. Well, I am glad--it is not my responsibility, of
course, to make that certification. That is the Coast Guard and
the Secretary and the Director of OMB, but before I would put
my name on the dotted line in order to certify to you that
everything is fully funded, I would want to know how much it is
going to cost, and what I was going to get for it, and I
personally would have to wait until I understood which
contractor was going to go into it, and what that contractor's
line-by-line was, for which ship, when, and I also would want
to know, as Admiral Loy puts it, when Deepwater will come of
age, and the implications that is going to have for the funding
stream.
There are two elements of this certification, Senator, and
one element is that the Coast Guard have in its capital plan
funding within the OMB targets. I could say right now, yes,
they have done that. It is within the OMB targets. It has been
submitted with the budget of the Department.
The other element of this is that it is fully funded, and
that implies that I know exactly what I am going to buy and
what I need, and I do not know that yet.
Senator Murray. Admiral Loy, when are we going to see the
certification occur? Will it be before we know who has the
contract?
Admiral Loy. Yes, ma'am. The certification, as I understand
it, has already cleared both OMB and the Department.
Senator Murray. So we have the certification, but as Mr.
Mead points out, we do not know who the contractor is yet, so
the cost could change.
Admiral Loy. The cost parameters of the RFP on the street
remain affixed, Madam Chairman, and it is all associated with
the 1998 baseline, $500 million a year over the course of
approximately 20 years.
Now, we fully expect--and this notion of will it be 20 or
30, that is all about, across that 20 years there is very
likely to be variations as the Congress considers the annual
request that is forthcoming from the administration each year,
so if, in fact, for example, there would be a couple or $400
million with the 1998 baseline, $400 million a year, would that
mean that the project was a 22-year project instead of a 20-
year project? You see what I mean.
Those variations are certainly possible as the Congress
exercises its authority each year and as the administration
makes its request each year, but the certification is already
cleared, and I was actually hoping I would be able to bring it
to you this morning, but the Director has not yet signed it
over at OMB.
Senator Murray. How much is assumed to be budgeted for
other critical Search and Rescue procurements under that
certification?
Admiral Loy. Across multiple years? I will get you those
numbers, Madam Chairman. I do not have the 2004 or 2005 numbers
in my head in terms of the rest of the improvement for the SAR
program that is the game plan for SAR. That Mr. Mead's staff
was just briefed on the other day and found to be very
satisfactory, but I can get you those numbers.
Senator Murray. Well, I think what concerns me is, we are
certifying it before we know how much it is going to cost, what
we are going to get, and what other critical missions--not
missions, but housing facilities, shore facilities are going to
be crowded out as a result of that.
Admiral Loy. Yes, ma'am, and of course CIP, as we all know,
within the restraints associated within the mechanics of
producing it each year, are keyed to projections and keyed to
projections limited by, I think it is a 2.0, or 2.2 percent
associated rise inside the OMB projections, so if you look
backwards each and every year when our real needs had been
adequately expressed to the Director, the request for our AC&I
levels on those attendant years have been attendant to the
needs of the organization, so it is not that I ignore the
notion of what the CIP is all about, but we have to, I think,
take it with the notion of understanding the mechanics required
to produce it.
SEARCH AND RESCUE ENHANCEMENTS
Senator Murray. Let me change topics entirely, Admiral, and
ask you about a report the Coast Guard issued about the March
2001 tragedy in which two Coast Guardsmen lost their lives at
station Niagara, in the Great Lakes. That report reiterates
many of the findings of the IG regarding the lack of adequate
training for boat crews, and the lack of adequate equipment.
One of the recommendations of that report is for all Coast
Guard Search and Rescue personnel to be issued their own
antiexposure suits. Is that recommendation fully funded in your
fiscal year 2003 budget?
Admiral Loy. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Murray. It is?
Admiral Loy. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Murray. Another recommendation from that report is
that the Coast Guard should rapidly pursue the National
Distress Response System authorization project, particularly
the asset tracking components. Has your newly configured
National Distress Response Modernization project eliminated any
aspect of your ability to track the whereabouts of Coast Guard
Search and Rescue assets?
Admiral Loy. No ma'am. Asset tracking remains a critical
feature of the new system, and absolutely an imperative in the
RFP. Beyond that, just because in the wake of Morning Dew
several years ago and, of course, Niagara and any other kind of
an incident like that, we try not to wait, if we can, so a
couple of the features associated with the lessons that we
learned from those experiences are already in place.
For example, the direction finding capability, the digital
voice recorders, I just was down, for example, at our station
on Lake Pontchartrain in New Orleans at the beginning of the
week, and went directly to their command and control center to
see precisely whether or not that capability was there, and in
fact was delighted that it was.
So as part of the staffing increases that you have
directed, that is a net gain for us in terms of command
supervision and capability staffing, obviously with respect to
boat crews and boats themselves, but the specific answer to
your question, asset tracking, absolutely part of the
requirements on the street.
Senator Murray. One of the findings of the investigation
was that, the chain of command failed to have a common
understanding of the level of risk, or of various Search and
Rescue missions. Do you think that is a common problem?
Admiral Loy. We have watched that very carefully, and this
was about several things, Madam Chairman. It was about, for
example, should we have a national standard with respect to
communications checks from deployed assets--in other words,
should they check in every hour, should they check in every 15
minutes?--and we believe there is a requirement for a national
standard to then be--to be delegated to the local commander, or
something higher than the national standard in areas like that.
So we are looking with respect to check-in times, with the
adequacy of the size of boat crews, all those things are being
very much reviewed in the wake of not only Morning Dew but the
Niagara as well, and I think we have a handle on the national
standard issue.
We then want to be able to make sure that if the Officer-
in-Charge of a station in the middle of a storm, as opposed to
a bright, sunny day, or night as opposed to day, wants to
challenge and raise the standards of performance for his boat
crew and for the supervision and oversight, he has the ability
to do that.
Senator Murray. When we think of the need to improve Search
and Rescue, we commonly think of permanent individual stations,
but the finding of that investigation said Group Buffalo lacked
an awareness of ongoing Search and Rescue Station operations.
That is a pretty disturbing finding. How is it that your Group
Commanders did not have an appreciation of the ongoing
operations of their Search and Rescue Stations?
Admiral Loy. Well, I am concerned about that as well, and
the administrative investigation for the Niagara incident is
just about finished. It actually parallels and tracks pretty
closely with the mishap analysis, which is what was published
at the end of last week.
If the investigation reveals either on the specific case
that this Group and its doctrine was not overseeing adequately
the Station's performance as the stations are distributed
around the group, we will deal with that. I think the doctrine
that I have reviewed in our Search and Rescue Manual is sound
with respect to the oversight responsibilities of the Group
Commander to the stations that they actually have in their
group.
Senator Murray. Is this a problem that is Coast Guard-wide,
and if so----
Admiral Loy. Yes, ma'am. That is the issue I was concerned
about.
Senator Murray. Were there any initiatives in your budget
request that will help us address that?
Admiral Loy. The issues in the budget request that would
help us address that would be about Group and Command Center
staffing adequacy, again which was part of Ken's audit over the
course of the last year, and we are inserting, if you will,
into the Group Offices, the Command Center staffing, greater
numbers so that we are not dealing with fatigue factors, for
example, or we are not keeping somebody up 24 hours, when in
fact he should be getting a good, solid night's rest.
Mr. Mead. Madam Chair, I would just like to reiterate, we
do think the Coast Guard has a good plan that is responsive,
and obviously nobody counted on 9/11 coming along, and the
clear test, of course, is going to be in its execution, but the
plan that we were briefed on was substantive, it was solid,
there was not a lot of puff, and I think if they go forward
with dispatch and execute it, that you will be quite pleased.
NAVY SECURITY INITIATIVES
Senator Murray. Let me ask you about your Navy support,
Admiral. Immediately after September 11, you began discussions
with the Navy to substantially improve the capability and
interoperability of Coast Guard cutters for homeland defense
that included improved weapons, communications systems centers,
and protective equipment items that the Navy had purchased for
the Coast Guard in the past.
At one point I know you were hopeful of receiving $240
million, but in the end they provided you with only $2 million.
What does that tell you about their level of support?
Admiral Loy. I think we have to take the bigger picture
first, Madam Chairman. I mentioned earlier the first phone call
I had on 9/11 was about Secretary Mineta and standing up the
reserve arm. The second phone call I got was from Admiral
Clark, Admiral Vern Clark, the Chief of Naval Operations, a
very strong phone call offering to me the full support of the
Navy as necessary.
We have had a number of very solid meetings, and the work-
up that we are currently engaged in with respect to the
anticipated spring supplemental has a very strong Coast Guard
set of requirements being reflected in the Navy's request that
will go forward.
Senator Murray. Will that be in the Navy's request?
Admiral Loy. Yes, ma'am. I cannot tell you what happened
outside of the Navy and the rest of the efforts in DOD, but you
need to be aware that at the Navy level, the Navy-Coast Guard
level understands the thing you just mentioned about the kinds
of things that have been funded in the past, and they take
their responsibilities very seriously.
Senator Murray. Some of the equipment enhancements, it
appears to me, that are in your budget request are the same
systems you hope the Navy would do for you 4 months ago. Are we
going to see those requests from the Navy?
Admiral Loy. We deconflicted, if you will, that set, that
list.
Senator Murray. That must be a military term.
Admiral Loy. They are not overlapping. We do not have
things on both lists, and so the kinds of things that we would
be seeking from the Navy have to do with sensoring and
interoperability, and weapons and ammunition.
Senator Murray. So we are not going to see duplicative
requests?
Admiral Loy. Exactly. That is what we are guaranteeing as
we build the spring supplemental.
Senator Murray. Let me just make sure, did everything come
off the Navy's list and come through your request to us, or did
they take any of it?
Admiral Loy. They took a good bit, yes, ma'am, in terms of
what it is that they are going to seek on our behalf in the
spring build.
Senator Murray. I will be looking forward to seeing that.
Admiral Loy. I will keep you posted precisely on the things
on the list.
The other thing I was going to add, Madam Chairman, is,
Admiral Clark also made some very significant decisions that
have been enormously helpful. For example, they were about to
decommission the Cyclone class patrol craft. Currently, those
13 assets are available, 13-170 foot patrol craft with full
Navy crews are being employed by Coast Guard Commanders at
various ports around the country, including Puget Sound, so
that was probably a $65-million decision he made, just because
he knew it was the right thing to do, and his personal, and
Secretary England's personal attention to understanding how the
Navy can supplement, complement, and help the Coast Guard in
its responsibilities for the maritime security piece have been
admirable.
PORT SECURITY CHALLENGES
Senator Murray. Let me switch topics again, Admiral.
Seattle and Takoma are two of the largest container ports in
the country. They are also cities with particularly bad heroin
problems. Some people have speculated that those two facts are
related, that the amount of container traffic from Asia passing
through our ports and Vancouver contribute to the drug abuse
problems, and when we think about the need to improve port
security, containers pose a very difficult challenge, I think
we can all agree.
Right now, Coast Guard and Customs are only able to
inspect, as I understand, about 2 percent of the containers
that are in the U.S. How is that percentage going to change as
a result of the fiscal year 2003 budget?
Admiral Loy. Madam Chairman, I think the whole notion of
Maritime Domain Awareness, you might recall the five points I
mentioned in terms of the challenge that we all have looking
forward to a maritime security plan for the Nation. I believe
information is the key to our insight to doing a better job
with respect to doing a better job with container security in
this Nation.
As we speak, I have a delegation over in London working
with the International Maritime Organization to take on the
challenge of grappling with this container security issue at
the international level. More importantly, in the United
States, Secretary Mineta has asked MARAD and Coast Guard and
the other interested elements--because it is a transportation
dilemma. 6 million of these things come into our seaports, 17
million of them come into our country, the other 11 coming
across the Canadian border or the Mexican border on trucks or
trains or whatever.
So this issue I believe is, from the maritime security
perspective, the number 1 challenge for our Nation to get our
arms around. Whether it is in Puget Sound and a connection to
counternarcotics, or whether it is anywhere else across the
linear borders with Canada and Mexico, or the ports and
waterways of our country, container security has to be dealt
with.
Senator Murray. How long is it going to take the IMO to
come back with recommendations?
Admiral Loy. I have accused them of being glacial in their
pace of activity often, but I have a dedicated Secretary-
General's promise that we will gather from this year, by
December of this year some constructive efforts not only with
respect to container, but credentialing of international
seamen.
200,000 sailors come to the United States on commercial
ships on an annual basis. We need security plans for vessels
and passenger terminals and off-shore structures. There is a
half-dozen or more very right things for us to be grappling at
the international level to raise the standards in the classic
notion that a rising tide will raise all boats.
Senator Murray. Do you really think we can depend on
nations that originate these shipments to give us the kind of
security we want here?
Admiral Loy. Certainly not exclusively, absolutely not. In
fact, many of the nations of the world, as we all know, will
find it enormously difficult to have the assets necessary,
financial or otherwise, to make the commitments we are asking
for.
But the marketplace is the United States, and if, in fact,
they choose to continue, whether it is shipowners, or
charterers, or insurers, or anyone else, if they choose to
continue to do business in the United States, akin to what you
suggested earlier, ma'am, where what happened in the aftermath
of the EXXON VALDEZ, and a decade's worth of experience of
watching the United States set standards to which the rest of
the world then rallied to, my guess is we will be doing the
same thing with respect to maritime security.
Senator Murray. If we cannot keep heroin out of containers,
it is hard to believe we could keep other lethal products out.
Admiral Loy. Yes, ma'am, it is a nightmare scenario that I
wake up with every night.
Mr. Mead. We are auditing container security this year. It
is very interesting, one component of the audit we want to
include is the trends in containers coming to this country,
what the trend line looks like, so you can see what type, the
magnitude of the problem, and also this is a big cross-modal
issue, because it used to be that a container you put on a ship
you could not put on a truck. You had to take stuff out and put
it in another container. Now, you can lift it and go, and you
can put them on trains, you can put them on trucks, and it is
truly a cross-modal issue.
Senator Murray. It is a huge economic impact, and so I will
be looking forward to that.
Admiral Loy. That is the challenge, ma'am, absolutely. we
all understand that the economic, or our prosperity is built on
our economic foundation, and at the same time we are trying to
identify the small percentage of the bad guys--I do not know
what that number is, 2 percent, 5 percent--we want to be
identifying the good guys and actually facilitate their
commerce through our system.
But Hart-Rudman, the study that Senator Hart and Senator
Rudman did, that was precisely the dichotomy, the economic, the
balance between facilitating commerce on one hand and being
concerned about security on the other.
Senator Murray. It is a challenge.
Admiral Loy. Yes, ma'am.
COAST GUARD'S NEW SECURITY TEAMS
Senator Murray. Admiral, as you know, the Committee doubled
the number of Marine Safety and Security Teams you requested in
the 2002 supplemental. One of those teams is going to be
located in Puget Sound, so the Coast Guard does not have to
continue to divert its Search and Rescue assets in order to
provide force protection for the Navy. When do you anticipate
commissioning that new unit?
Admiral Loy. I do not have a date for you, ma'am, but it is
very quick. The four from the supplemental will be augmented by
two more in the 2003 request to an initial inventory of six.
The four sites, Puget Sound, Norfolk, LA/LB, and Houston-
Galveston, are set for the four that came from the
supplemental. I will get you a date, and frankly, I would be
delighted if perhaps we could gather at that date and cut a
ribbon.
Senator Murray. Do you anticipate sooner rather than later?
Admiral Loy. Absolutely, yes, ma'am.
Senator Murray. Any hint at what sooner rather than later
means?
COMBINING COAST GUARD WITH OTHER AGENCIES
Admiral Loy. I will call you this afternoon, if I may.
Senator Murray. Admiral, we read with interest about the
debate within the Administration over whether the Coast Guard
should be combined with the Customs Service and the INS into a
new megaborder security agency.
Now, I recognize this could be a difficult issue for you to
talk about, but since this is your last hearing I wanted to
give you an opportunity to give us your personal view on that
question, recognizing that the Administration has not yet
reached a position on this. What are your personal thoughts
about the merits of combining the Coast Guard with all of those
other agencies?
Admiral Loy. It is a very complex question, and it is
attendant with all kinds of porcelain that people do not like
to see broken pieces of in terms of turf, whether it is
Committee structures on the Hill, or organizational structures
in the Administration.
My thoughts at the strategic level are these. We chose to
reorganize the Department of Defense in 1947, not 1944 or 1945.
I think that is instructive. We waited for the crisis, World
War II to be over, and then we reorganized the Department of
Defense. I think good old management 101 suggests do not
reorganize in the middle of a crisis, and do not leap to a
notion that moving boxes around on an organizational chart is
necessarily going to improve whatever it is you are trying to
improve.
A second notion, also sort of management 101, I guess, is
that form should follow function, and that suggests to me that
the much more important discussions to be having right now are
the functionality discussions. If we can find areas, whether it
is port of entry inspection services, whether it is between
ports of entry, whether it is inclusive of the exclusive
economic zone and the territorial sea, whether we can do--we
have a criteria set. Can we be more efficient, can we be more
effective, can we serve customers better, and can we enhance
security?
If any of those four, or some combination of those four
criteria would be served well after a solid functionality
review----
Senator Murray. So are you suggesting that maybe part of
the agency, part of some function can be----
Admiral Loy. No, ma'am. I am looking at the service
provided. For example, at a port of entry, if we see someone
carrying their customs declaration form, whether it is an
airport, or whether it is a linear border port of entry, go and
have to show it to this person with this uniform on, or that
person with that uniform on, and this person with this uniform
on, if there is an efficiency process that we can gauge there,
we should take a very strong look at doing that more
efficiently, that function more efficiently than in the past.
From the Coast Guard's perspective, because of the lessons
we learned for the millionth time on 9/11, we should not be in
the business of slicing and dicing mission areas of our
organization. What the American taxpayer gets best from the
Coast Guard is for a single overhead, all of those missions
accomplished. That should be sacrosanct, as should our military
nature, because of the discipline that it brings to what we do
for America.
But the other important thing to take stock of at the
moment, Madam Chairman, is that TSA represents an enormous
undertaking for the Secretary of Transportation. The Congress
has seen, with the Administration, in its wisdom to provide
that challenge to Secretary Mineta. TSA eventually will be
about more than aviation. It will be about the maritime sector,
it will be about the others as well. Wherever the synergies
associated with what is trying to happen in our transportation
security system is being served, we do not want to trade
synergies here.
I think at the moment that for the foreseeable future we
belong still in transportation because of this transportation
security issue, which is multimodal in nature, and the maritime
piece. Secretary Mineta needs to have that well-served for him
in the Department.
Senator Murray. To that point, the new TSA, as you said, is
responsible for all modes of transportation, and we are told
that Secretary McGaw intends to appoint an Associate Under
Secretary for Maritime Security, and we are told that DOD may
also be appointing a new Commander in Chief for the Security of
North America. How does that chain of command work in the Coast
Guard function under either of those two new structures?
Admiral Loy. With respect to TSA, I believe that because
they already have in the Coast Guard an organization that does
all of the line work out in the field, there will be more of a
liaison relationship with TSA and an oversight relationship of
Under Secretary McGaw, and serving Secretary Mineta in that
regard. They are not having--for example, they are having to
stand up a 40,000 person organization, or whatever the number
is at the moment, but most of those people will be focused on
aviation security and the wherewithal to do what we need to do
there.
Senator Murray. My basic question is, who is going to
determine the posture of the Coast Guard's maritime security
efforts? Will it be the Commandant, will it be the
Transportation Security Administration, will it be the new CINC
who will be making those decisions?
Admiral Loy. I will be developing the plans and seeking
Secretary Mineta's and the President's blessing on the maritime
security plan.
Senator Murray. You would be determining what those plans
are?
Admiral Loy. Yes, ma'am. With respect to the new CINC, it
is important for the Committee to know that literally from day
one, if you will, on 9/11, we have been immersed in the work
going on at Joint Forces Command down in Norfolk and with NORAD
in Colorado. Those two are the elements that will be the core
around which NORTHCOM--if that is, in fact, what occurs and the
President agrees, NORTHCOM will have the homeland security
responsibilities that DOD will bring to the table.
It has already been--the designwork already has the Coast
Guard as the lead agency for the maritime sector, as supported
by a host of others in terms of what would be brought to the
table for that new CINC, the homeland security chief in DOD, so
in both cases we are already integrated as the maritime sector
lever, if you will, in terms of getting the job done.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Murray. Admiral, again, as we end this hearing, let
me just thank you for your tremendous service to this Nation,
and I wish you the best in your future service, wherever that
may be. I am sorry this is going to be your last opportunity.
Mr. Mead, obviously, fortunately for us, unfortunately for
you, you will be back again, but we appreciate your service as
well.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Admiral James M. Loy
Questions Submitted by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski
vessel tracking system
Question. What progress have you made in working with the ports to
identify and implement some sort of vessel-tracking system?
Answer. The Coast Guard worked directly with the port industry in
conducting Port and Waterway Safety Assessments in 30 ports to
determine if a Vessel Traffic Service was needed to ensure a safe and
orderly flow of marine traffic. Although these assessments had a safety
focus, the information gathered in this process has been applied to
determine if some sort of vessel tracking system was needed to enhance
port security.
The Automatic Identification System (AIS) will be the cornerstone
sensor for vessel tracking in ports, port approaches, offshore areas
and inland waterways. The Coast Guard has been working with ports and
port users to test and develop AIS before its eventual phased-in
deployment beginning in July of 2002. The Coast Guard is also working
with the International Maritime Organization to accelerate the
implementation date of AIS. The accelerated implementation schedule, if
adopted, will require foreign commercial vessels arriving in the U.S.
to have AIS by July 2004. A plan for establishing the AIS shore side
infrastructure is being developed. This plan will deploy AIS receiving
stations in strategic sites to monitor commercial traffic.
The Coast Guard's National Vessel Movement Center is an
administrative form of vessel tracking system utilizing a system of
pre-arrival reporting. The Coast Guard worked closely with the marine
industry in implementing this 96-hour advance notice of arrival system
and continues to work with vessel operators and agents in operating the
system.
The Coast Guard is also working with our counterparts in the
Department of Defense and local response organizations to determine
where vessel tracking and monitoring systems are needed to protect
critical assets and infrastructure.
The Coast Guard's budget request reflects our highest priority
needs with respect to Vessel Traffic Service and Automatic
Identification System installations.
benefits of the integrated deepwater system project
Question. Can you discuss the benefits of the Coast Guard's
Deepwater Project, particularly it's role in addressing the Coast
Guard's aging fleet of cutters and aircraft?
Answer. The Coast Guard's current fleet of deepwater ships and
aircraft are aging and technologically obsolete. As a result, they lack
fundamental capabilities and technologies necessary for efficient and
effective mission performance. These capabilities include sufficient
cutter speed, proper sensors and night operations capability on cutters
and aircraft, interoperability between cutters and aircraft, adequate
communications, and access to mission critical information. The lack of
commonality between classes of ships and aircraft classes has also
created major logistical and supportability hurdles and increased
training requirements.
The Integrated Deepwater System (IDS) will reverse the erosion of
the operational effectiveness currently being experienced due to
obsolescence and aging of Coast Guard cutters, planes, sensors and
communications systems. Without the IDS, replacements would not be
available in time to prevent a dramatic drop in operational
effectiveness.
The Coast Guard Integrated Deepwater System Program will renovate,
modernize or replace aging cutters and aircraft that are approaching
their end-of service life. Rather than replace the deepwater assets on
a one-for-one basis as done in the past utilizing the traditional
Federal acquisition paradigm, the Integrated Deepwater System Program
is implementing an innovative Mission-Based Performance Acquisition
approach that describes the capabilities needed to perform Coast Guard
missions in the deepwater environment. The assets procured through the
Integrated Deepwater System Program will be interoperable, employ
state-of-the market technology, and be specifically designed to provide
the Coast Guard the capabilities needed to perform current deepwater
missions as well as future missions.
deepwater operational capability improvements
Question. How will the Deepwater Project improve your operational
capability?
Answer. The Integrated Deepwater System Program will improve the
Coast Guard's operational capability. The overarching goal of the
Deepwater Program is to maximize operational effectiveness while
minimizing total ownership costs.
Existing legacy cutters, aircraft and C4ISR lack capabilities and
technologies necessary for efficient and effective mission performance.
These capabilities include sufficient cutter speed, proper sensors and
night operations capability on cutters and aircraft, interoperability
between cutters and aircraft, adequate communications, and access to
mission critical information. The lack of commonality between classes
of ships and aircraft classes results in major logistical and
supportability hurdles, as well as increased training requirements.
Legacy (current) ships and aircraft are aging and are technologically
obsolete.
As outdated technology ultimately increases operating and
maintenance costs, it also places greater demands on the Coast Guard's
infrastructure. System and component manufacturers cancel production
and support for old equipment and parts, while labor costs increase.
Cutter and aircraft operational availability decreases thus limiting
their effectiveness.
Interoperability is built in from the beginning by considering and
designing deepwater assets as components of an overall Integrated
Deepwater System. There will be improved data link capability on major
cutters and data link capability between smaller cutters and aircraft
Deepwater assets will be able to implement a modern network-centric
concept of operations. Just as with Navy task forces, Deepwater assets
will be connected via data links and will automatically be able to
share tactical information in real time. Coast Guard Deepwater assets
will be able to implement the Navy/Coast Guard National Fleet Policy by
providing more capable assets for joint operations.
benefits of deepwater system acquisition approach
Question. Can you discuss the benefits of the systems acquisition
approach for the Deepwater Project? Was this approach based on
operational considerations? If so, in what ways will it make the Coast
Guard more effective than a more traditional asset-for-asset
replacement program?
Answer. The ``systems of systems'' acquisition approach for the
Deepwater Program was based on operational considerations. The Coast
Guard's current fleet of deepwater ships, aircraft, logistics support
systems, and C4ISR are aging and technologically obsolete.
Rather than replace the deepwater assets on a one-for-one basis
utilizing the traditional Federal acquisition process, the Deepwater
Program is a performance-based acquisition to replace current
capabilities. This performance-based acquisition differs from the
traditional type because the Coast Guard focuses on performance
specifications for an integrated system of assets based on operational
capabilities needed to perform the Coast Guard's seven federally
mandated missions. The assets procured and the upgrades to existing CG
equipment will operate with each other, with other agencies, employ
state-of-the market technology, and be specifically designed to provide
the Coast Guard the capabilities needed to perform current deepwater
missions as well as future missions.
This type of innovation and integration would be much more
cumbersome if attempted as separate, distinct acquisitions.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
burlington, vermont breakwater
Question. Last year's Transportation Appropriations Bill included
language that was part of the Senate-passed version of the bill
securing funds for a waterways aids to navigation project in
Burlington, VT. The language reads: ``Within the funds provided, the
Committee directs $250,000 to be available only for the construction
and installation of two aids to navigation on the Burlington, Vermont
Breakwater to replace the existing dated equipment.'' ADM Loy, after
passage of the bill I wrote to you on January 7, 2002, seeking to work
with you on completing this project. A copy of that letter is attached.
Since I have yet to receive a response from you, I will take this
opportunity to seek clarification:
What is the status of these aids to navigation along the Burlington
Waterfront? And what is the Coast Guard doing to follow-up on the
Congressional directive for this project?
Answer. The aids to navigation currently in place are appropriate
to our navigation system and serve mariners' interests properly. The
funds identified in the appropriations bill are adequate to replace the
current structures with a more contemporary design however.
In May 2002, the Coast Guard's regional office engaged the City of
Burlington and the Maritime Heritage Museum to discuss various options
for replacing the present structures using funds identified in the
appropriations bill.
Officials from the City and Museum indicated their intent was to
receive the funding appropriated for this project as a grant, which is
not consistent with the current appropriations language. The Coast
Guard will do everything possible, in accordance with appropriations
law, to meet the desires of the local constituents. The local officials
have indicated they desire grant funding and will approach their
legislators for appropriations language consistent with their
objectives.
Attached please find a copy of Admiral Collins' March 22, 2002
letter response to you.
U.S. Department of Transportation,
U.S. Coast Guard,
Washington, DC, March 22, 2002.
Hon. Patrick Leahy,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Leahy: This is in response to your inquiry of January
7, 2002, on behalf of the City of Burlington, Vermont, and the Lake
Champlain Maritime Museum, regarding replacing breakwater lights with
historically consistent structures.
The Senate Mark report identified $250,000 for the Burlington
project ``to replace existing dated equipment.'' While the current
structures have many years of service life remaining, given your
interest and the multi-million dollar rehabilitation of the breakwater,
we will work with the interested parties to identify possible
replacement structures. Replacing the present structures with
historical wooden replicas may be problematic and dependent on the
scope of the breakwater's rehabilitation. A substantially larger
financial base will be required to support a historical structure.
Since replacing the present structures with wooden replicas is beyond
our normal scope of business due to the susceptibility of ice damage
and the costs associated with follow-on maintenance efforts, it might
be in everyone's best interest to investigate the usage of private aid-
to-navigation procedures to meet the community's aesthetic interests.
Congress is actively moving the Coast Guard away from a role in
historical structures through legislation such as the National Historic
Lighthouse Preservation Act of 2000. Our purpose remains to help the
maritime community manage transit risks associated with collisions and
groundings by providing the right short-range aids-to-navigation
signals with an economical life cycle cost to taxpayers. I am confident
that my district officials can continue the positive discussions with
your local constituents and develop an appropriate plan that meets
everyone's desires and can be accomplished within the prescribed
funding constraints.
I hope this information assists you in responding to your
constituent. If you have any further questions, please have your staff
contact the Senate Liaison Office at (202) 224 2913.
Sincerely,
T.H. Collins,
Vice Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Acting Commandant.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Murray. The subcommittee stands recessed until the
week of February 25, when we will take testimony on highway
safety issues.
[Whereupon, at 12 noon, Thursday, February 14, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2003
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 21, 2002
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 9:35 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Patty Murray (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Murray and Shelby.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Security Challenges for Transportation of Cargo
STATEMENT OF JOHN MAGAW, ADMINISTRATOR, TRANSPORTATION
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
ACCOMPANIED BY:
REAR ADMIRAL PAUL PLUTA, ASSISTANT COMMANDANT FOR MARINE SAFETY
AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, U.S. STATES COAST GUARD
JOSEPH CLAPP, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY
ADMINISTRATION
ALLAN RUTTER, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION
ELLEN ENGLEMAN, ADMINISTRATOR, RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS
ADMINISTRATION
CAPTAIN CHRISTOPHER McMAHON, MARITIME ADMINISTRATION
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATTY MURRAY
Senator Murray. The subcommittee will come to order.
More than 6 months have passed since the tragic events of
September 11. And since then we have been working to protect
our country from future terrorist attacks. Just weeks after
September 11, Congress responded by appropriating billions of
dollars to shore up our aviation industry and to improve
security across our aviation system.
We passed the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, but
it is important to remember that the act covered more than just
aviation. It gave the new Transportation Security
Administration responsibility for ensuring security in all
modes of transportation. Our security system is only as strong
as its weakest link. As we work to make aviation more secure, I
want to make sure we are not leaving other vulnerabilities open
to those who would threaten us.
So today we are going to explore the state of security in
the transportation of cargo, including hazardous materials. It
is estimated that roughly one-third of the terrorist attacks
that occur around the world are targeted on some aspect of
transportation. Every day there are more than 800,000 shipments
of hazardous material within the United States, mostly over our
railways and highways.
Millions of dollars worth of goods enter our seaports each
day from thousands of destinations and rapidly find their way
onto those highways and railways. Much of that freight is
identified only as ``freight of all kinds.'' We know very
little about the true identity of the shipper and we know even
less about the true nature of the cargo. As I have looked at
this, I have found major gaps in funding and regulations. We
have a system that is designed to prevent accidents, but not
designed to prevent deliberate attacks.
This morning's subcommittee hearing will focus on the
vulnerabilities that surround the transportation of cargo,
especially hazardous cargo, and what is and is not being done
to better ensure security across our entire transportation
system. As we look at this issue, I want to point out four
challenges we will need to consider: the economic importance of
moving goods quickly, how our major cities and ports are
closely connected, the role of hazardous materials, and the
inconsistent regulations and funding across all modes of
transportation.
First, our cargo transportation system was designed with
speed in mind. Many American industries have become more
efficient and productive than their foreign counterparts by
exploiting the benefits of just-in-time delivery. This has been
an economic success story that no one wants to undermine.
A second challenge is our transportation infrastructure
itself. Historically, our largest cities have developed around
our major rivers and rail systems. Our interstate highway
systems were designed to connect those cities. As a result,
hazardous cargo moves through one population center or another
every hour of every day. Similarly, most of our major ports are
found at the waterside of our largest cities, be it in Seattle-
Tacoma, Los Angeles-Long Beach, Newark-New York area, or
Houston.
Across the Nation, waterside shipping terminals sit next to
residential communities and busy commercial districts. Keeping
people and cargo separated is for the most part unattainable.
A third challenge concerns hazardous materials like
chlorine, which is used to purify drinking water. Transporting
chlorine poses a security challenge, but we must remember that
the American public relies on these and other hazardous
materials in our everyday lives. We need to make sure that they
can be transported safely.
A fourth challenge is the Federal regulatory and
enforcement regimes that currently govern the transportation of
hazardous cargos. Our government policies and regulations have
largely been designed to prevent an accidental release of
hazardous materials. They have not been designed to protect
against a deliberate release. Many of the agencies within the
Department of Transportation that are now charged with
launching new security regulations are already behind in
publishing regulations to maintain transportation safety. We
need to make sure that they can meet the existing safety
challenges and the new security challenges effectively.
Taken together, all of these challenges will require strong
and informed leadership. Frankly I am concerned about the
leadership we have seen so far. Many in the transportation
industry have told me the efforts to date have been
characterized by a lack of direction, a lack of urgency, and a
general confusion over who is in charge.
Our new Under Secretary of Transportation for Security,
John Magaw, is responsible for security in all modes of
transportation safety. However, the extraordinary challenges
presented by the Aviation and Transportation Security Act have
required us to focus almost entirely on aviation. As such, when
it comes to trucking, railroads, pipelines, and our ports, the
new security requirements have been left largely to the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration, the Federal Railroad
Administration, the Maritime Administration, the Coast Guard,
and the Research and Special Programs Administration. Somewhere
in the middle of all of this the Secretary's office and the new
Office of Homeland Security weigh in from time to time. While I
am not an advocate of one size fits all solutions to the
security problem, it is hard not to notice some of the glaring
differences in the way different transportation industries are
being handled by different parts of DOT.
In some industries, individual companies are being asked to
develop their own security plans and submit them for approval
by the Federal agency. In other instances, the agencies
themselves are developing the security plans for industry. And
in yet another, the companies are just being asked to have a
plan in place with no agency review. We even find
inconsistencies in what is and is not considered classified
information. While the number of new Federal air marshals
sought in the President's budget is classified, the number of
new Coast Guard sea marshals is printed for all to see in the
Coast Guard's annual budget.
There are even more significant inconsistencies in the
funding levels requested in the President's budget. For
aviation security, the President requested several billion
dollars. For Coast Guard, the President requested historic
funding increases. But for the Federal Railroad Administration,
the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, and the
Research and Special Programs Administration, there are no
major funding initiatives to deal with security in these
transportation modes.
For port security, Congress funded almost a hundred million
dollars in direct grants for security improvements at our ports
in 2002. The President, however, in his budget request, has
requested zero dollars, zero, for port security grants.
In the absence of clear leadership by the Administration,
individual transportation industries have sought to stand up to
the challenge. The major class-one freight railroads have
sought to implement their own new security regime. So have some
of the larger and more organized sectors of the trucking and
chemical industries. But even they are working somewhat in the
dark. No sooner did the railroad industry set up a new security
regime pegged to four different security alert levels than
Governor Ridge announced his new national system with five
different security alert levels. Clearly, we need to improve
our communication, so that we are all working together as
effectively as possible. And I believe we have got to focus on
the weakest links in the system.
All of our efforts on transportation security will be no
better than the effort of the least paid security guard manning
the perimeter fence of a rail yard or a pipeline pump station.
We have known for years about vulnerabilities in how States
distribute commercial drivers' licenses. It should not have
come as a surprise when it was discovered some months ago that
known terrorists were obtaining commercial drivers' licenses
with special endorsements to carry hazardous materials. It is
precisely because terrorists go after the weakest link that we
must not depend solely on voluntary measures by industry.
I commend the industries that have stepped up to the plate
to do the right thing, but we must remember that hazardous
materials are carried by more than just class-one railroads and
major trucking firms. There are over 38,000 individual trucking
firms, many that consist of only one truck, that are authorized
to carry hazardous materials. Those truckers do not have the
time, the money, or the desire to review the Federal Register
to learn what new voluntary measures are being recommended by
DOT. That is why we need comprehensible and enforceable
policies that will govern the behavior of each and every one of
them. We need more than just voluntary recommendations and
agency advisories to take greater care.
My goal for the hearing this morning is to get answers as
to who is in charge of these security functions. If the answer
to that question is that no one is in charge, then I want to
know who is going to take charge. How is our Federal Government
going to attack the weakest links in our security system? And
when precisely are we going to see real policies put in place
to eliminate the vulnerability?
I am very pleased that so many distinguished members of the
Administration have joined us today. Our Under Secretary of
Transportation for Security, John Magaw, was required to
reschedule events in Europe so that he could be with us today,
and I appreciate that. And I appreciate his flexibility and
attention to this very important issue.
We are also joined by administrators of the Federal
Railroad Administration, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, and the Research and Special Programs
Administration. We are also joined by the appropriate
representatives from the Coast Guard and the Maritime
Administration. And I thank all of you for being here for the
hearing this morning.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY
Senator Shelby. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
After the attack on the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon, most of the focus in countering the threat by
international terrorists has been on improving the security of
our aviation system. That focus is appropriate and must
continue. We should not, however, lose sight of the need to
improve security in other modes of transportation. We must
identify all of our vulnerabilities and then develop more
practicable countermeasures to prevent an attack. Until we
understand the full spectrum of potential threats to each mode
of transportation, we run the risk of addressing relatively
minor, self-contained problems with great vigor, while leaving
potentially catastrophic threats exposed.
While assessing the vulnerabilities at our Nation's ports
and pipelines, highways and railways, we should remember that
the terrorist is capable of adapting his behavior and tactics
to circumvent heightened security measures. The department must
be just as nimble, or terrorists will have changed their
behavior before the department has ever changed its assumptions
about their behavior.
On the other hand, by adopting countermeasures to the
greatest potential dangers and constantly reevaluating those
procedures, we will not only be better prepared to meet the
terrorist threat, but will also deter other criminal activity
and reap other ancillary benefits, such as improved compliance
with safety regulations.
I believe that a national transportation risk assessment is
absolutely necessary. I also believe that we must conduct
ongoing reassessments, considering the constantly evolving
threat. I am keenly interested in Under Secretary Magaw's
thoughts about the need for such a comprehensive evaluation and
any progress the Transportation Security Administration has
made along those lines.
Perhaps the greatest threat to the country comes from the
use of conventional explosives in the short term and the use of
weapons of mass destruction in the future. The fact that it is
possible to either conceal a bomb in other goods or to use the
material itself, such as hazardous material, as a weapon of
mass destruction is what makes cargo an attractive target to
those who intend to inflict maximum harm.
During the hearing this morning, it is my hope that the
witnesses will address several concerns I have regarding the
security of cargo in the transportation system. Specifically,
we must establish an inspection system that stops cargo hiding
a bomb or weapon of mass destruction from entering the United
States. As long as we are able to check only a fraction of
cargo entering the United States, Federal inspection agencies
must screen all suspicious cargo and overlay a system of random
searches, a big challenge.
Second, we must be mindful of the intermodal nature of
cargo, whether shipped in containers or on pallets, and must
use security issues from a cross-modal perspective. The
department must adopt a comprehensive system that assures both
the integrity of the cargo and the operators responsible for
transporting that cargo.
Third, we must establish, I believe, clear lines of
responsibility. A tug of war between the modal administrations
blurs the authority and leaves no one in charge.
We also must balance important safety requirements with a
new necessity to keep this dangerous cargo secure from attack.
Madam Chairman, the enemy we face is determined to attack
innocent Americans on our soil. They issue no demands, nor do
they plot their escape. They simply try to inflect maximum harm
by targeting us where we are vulnerable and by using our
strengths against us.
I believe the President and the Congress agree on the need
to provide the necessary resources to secure our Nation from
the threat of terrorism. As long as we maintain an open society
that permits the free movement of people and cargo, however, we
will be vulnerable to a certain extent.
I believe we will have to accept some level of risk,
because we should not and will not live in bunkers. But it is
our responsibility to reduce the risk to the physical
infrastructure to all modes of transportation. I look forward
to hearing the witnesses.
Senator Murray. Thank you, Senator Shelby.
We will now hear from the Honorable John Magaw, who is
Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration.
Mr. Magaw. Good morning and thank you, Madam Chairman and
Senator Shelby. I am privileged to be joined this morning by my
counterparts from the Department of Transportation:
Administrator Joseph Clapp of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration; Administrator Ellen Engleman from the Research
and Special Programs Administration; Administrator Allan Rutter
from the Federal Railroad Administration; Captain Chris
McMahon, representing the Maritime Administration; and Rear
Admiral Paul Pluta, from the United States Coast Guard. Also
present here this morning, as is a practice of ours, the senior
members of our staff from all of the modes are here, because we
think it is important that not only do they hear your message
first hand, but they understand it. It helps all of us to be
more focused, but at the same time flexible, as we address all
modes of transportation.
We appear before this subcommittee today to discuss the
issue of cargo security. My oral statement this morning, Madam
Chairman, is a short one. I ask that the full statement be
entered into the record.
Senator Murray. Without objection.
Mr. Magaw. Our Nation has entered a new era of security
awareness. Nowhere is that felt more strongly than in the field
of transportation, and both of you have referred to that many
times in your opening statements. Secretary Mineta and the
people of the Department of Transportation are working
aggressively to expand and strengthen our country's security
across all modes of transportation, be it aviation, rail,
surface, maritime, pipeline, and transit.
As Senator Shelby mentioned, risk assessments are very
important, because then it gives you the direction on which you
can address these many, many issues and allows you to
prioritize them as you move forward. We are working with our
partners in State and local law enforcement, other Federal
agencies, industry, labor, members of Congress, and the
important staffs that they employ, as the Transportation
Security Administration is being built, organized, and moves
forward to address these critical transportation issues.
With the congressionally-mandated deadlines prescribed in
the Aviation Transportation and Security Act of 2001, you are
very accurate to say that Transportation Security
Administration has devoted a great deal of its time to
aviation-related security issues. However, in the past days and
in the months ahead, our new organization will devote
substantial attention to an intermodal approach, including
maritime and surface transportation-related security issues.
I am pleased to announce that Rear Admiral Richard Bennis,
U.S. Coast Guard, retired, will start next week as the TSA
Associate Under Secretary for Maritime and Land Security.
Admiral Bennis brings a wealth of security knowledge and
experience to this job, not only from maritime security, but
from all modes of transportation, and including cargo.
We also have the support and the expertise of other
operating administrators as they sit here with me today. It is
clear in our minds that TSA has the responsibility for all the
security that you discussed. We are working collaboratively and
consulting with each other, and we will talk more in detail
about that later.
The Department of Defense Appropriations Act of Fiscal Year
2002 appropriated $93.3 million to TSA for competitive grants,
to enhance the facility and operational security at critical
seaports. The broad agency announcement for a port security
grant program has already been issued. We expect to complete
the process and initial awards should commence in June. We are
moving expeditiously to put this money to the best use.
In addition, we are making great strides in addressing one
of our most critical transportation security challenges, and
that is cargo container security. The most pressing security
challenges have been addressed with the existing authorities.
Now we must design and incorporate a network of protections
that transforms a rapid response into a sustained effort that
permanently integrates heightened security into all operations.
A week following the September 11 attacks, Secretary Mineta
established the National Infrastructure Security Committee
(NISC) to address security concerns in the surface modal
transportation system. Since that time, the NISC has evaluated
transportation infrastructure vulnerabilities and security
protocols and processes.
Six million marine containers in our Nation's ports, along
with 11 million truck and rail containers, cross the Mexican
and Canadian borders into America each year. In December 2001,
the National Infrastructure Security Committee established the
Container Working Group to recommend improvements in the secure
movement of these containers.
Cargo containers arriving at U.S. seaports today can be
virtually anywhere in the heartland of America tomorrow by way
of truck, rail, and air. Accordingly, any security measures
must be fully integrated throughout all modes of
transportation, as both of your statements so ably addressed.
All of us at the Department of Transportation are looking
forward to working with this committee and other members of the
Senate and the House in successfully reaching and maintaining
the new standard of transportation security that the Nation not
only needs but deserves. We will settle for nothing less, Madam
Chairman. And that concludes my statement.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of John MaGaw
The Department of Transportation appreciates the opportunity to
appear before the Subcommittee on Transportation Appropriations to
discuss the issue of cargo security. Our Nation has entered a new era
of security awareness since September 11 and nowhere is that felt more
strongly than in the field of transportation. Secretary Mineta is
working aggressively to build the security foundation the country needs
in this new era, from aviation to railways, highways, pipelines and
waterways. The Department is working with its partners in state and
local law enforcement, other government agencies, industry and labor
and with the leadership and Members of the Congress.
Thanks to your help, we are making great strides in addressing one
of our most critical transportation security challenges, cargo
security, but we need to do more. While the most pressing security
challenges have been met with existing authorities, we now must work to
build a new network of protections, one that transforms what has been a
rapid response into a sustained effort that recognizes heightened
security as a part of normal operations. In addition, cargo security
depends on the users of the system, shippers and operators, and affects
the trade corridors they use.
The new threats and opportunities of the 21st century demand a new
approach to border management. The United States has a 7,500-mile land
and air border shared with Canada and Mexico and an exclusive economic
zone encompassing 3.4 million square miles. Each year, 11.2 million
trucks and 2.2 million rail cars cross into the United States, while
7,500 foreign-flag ships make 51,000 calls in U.S. ports. The massive
flow of people and goods across our borders helps drive our economy,
but can also serve as a conduit for terrorists, weapons of mass
destruction, illegal migrants, contraband, and other unlawful
commodities.
President Bush envisions a border that is grounded on two key
principles: First, America's air, land, and sea borders must provide a
strong defense for the American people against all external threats,
most importantly international terrorists but also drugs, foreign
disease, and other dangerous items.
Second, America's border must be highly efficient, posing little or
no obstacle to legitimate trade and travel.
America requires a cargo management system that keeps pace with
expanding trade while protecting the United States and its territories
from the threats of terrorist attack, illegal immigration, illegal
drugs, and other contraband. The border of the future must integrate
actions abroad to screen goods and people prior to their arrival in
sovereign U.S. territory, and inspections at the border and measures
within the United States to ensure compliance with entry and import
permits. Federal border control agencies must have seamless
information-sharing systems that allow for coordinated communication
among themselves and also the broader law enforcement and intelligence
gathering communities. This integrated system would provide timely
enforcement of laws and regulations. The use of advanced technology to
track the movement of cargo and the entry and exit of individuals is
essential to the task of managing the movement of hundreds of millions
of individuals, conveyances, and vehicles.
Agreements with our neighbors, major trading partners, and private
industry will allow extensive pre-screening of low-risk traffic,
thereby allowing limited assets to focus attention on high-risk
traffic. Some of this work has already begun with Canada, our largest
trading partner. On December 12, 2001, Governor Tom Ridge, Director of
the Office of Homeland Security, and John Manley, then Canada's
Minister of Foreign Affairs, signed the ``Smart Border Declaration''
with a 30-point action plan that will help speed and secure the flow of
people and goods between the United States and Canada. The Smart Border
Declaration recognizes that ``our current and future prosperity and
security depend on a border that operates efficiently and effectively
under all circumstances.'' A similar effort is currently underway with
Mexico.
The struggle against terrorism is a truly national struggle.
Federal, State, and local government agencies, as well as the private
sector must work seamlessly together. Having the right system of
communication--content, process, and infrastructure--is critical to
bridging the existing gaps between the Federal, State, and local
governments, as well as the private sector. These new systems will
greatly assist our officials at all levels to protect and defend
against future terrorist attacks, and to effectively manage incidents
whenever they should occur.
To help meet these needs, the Administration has established a
uniform national threat advisory system, announced last week by the
Office of Homeland Security, to inform Federal agencies, State and
local officials, as well as the private sector, of terrorist threats
and appropriate protective actions. The President's Budget for fiscal
year 2003 supports this effort by funding the development and
implementation of secure information systems to streamline the
dissemination of critical homeland security information.
Likewise, the Department of Transportation, through the new
Transportation Security Administration (TSA), will be making every
effort to ensure the security of cargo, including containerized cargo,
as it moves throughout America's intermodal transportation system. With
its Congressionally mandated deadlines, TSA has been focusing primarily
on aviation-related security issues. However, in the months ahead, the
new organization will be devoting substantial attention to maritime and
surface transportation-related security.
Although much attention was rightfully focused on aviation
following the September 11 attacks, the Department of Transportation
took decisive steps to address the issue of security in all the surface
modes of transportation as well. In addition to the U.S. Coast Guard's
quick response to guard the security of American ports and waterways,
Secretary Mineta established the National Infrastructure Security
Committee (NISC). Through several direct action groups, the NISC was
tasked with evaluating transportation infrastructure vulnerabilities,
security protocols and processes and recommending changes to improve
security. As part of the President's USA Freedom Corps, the Department
is working with the Department of Justice on a ten-city pilot test of
the Terrorist Information and Prevention System (TIPS) that will use
transportation workers, letter carriers and others as part of a system
for reporting suspicious terrorist activity. If the pilot tests are
successful, the program will be expanded nationwide.
From the direct action group process, other groups have been formed
to tackle very specific security issues. Among these is the Container
Working Group--established through the NISC in December. The Container
Working group is co-chaired with the U.S. Customs Service and includes
representatives from the Departments of Defense, Energy, Commerce,
Justice, Agriculture, Health and Human Services (FDA) and others. The
group has oversight from the Office of Homeland Security.
The Container Working Group is tasked with providing
recommendations to improve the secure movement of the six million
marine containers that enter our nation's ports and the eleven million
truck and rail containers that cross the Mexican and Canadian borders
into America each year in a way that is safe and efficient. In order to
address individual aspects of container security, four subgroups of the
Container Working Group are studying information systems, security
technologies, business practices, and international affairs. On the
front lines of container security is the U.S. Customs Service, as well
as other federal agencies. The Container Working Group is studying
technologies and business practices that will enable Customs and others
to prevent high-risk containers from entering the United States or to
ensure that they are properly inspected before they pose a threat to
the United States. Although the Customs Service utilizes a thoughtful
risk-based selection method, preventing a container from being used as
a weapon requires a more complex strategy, enhancing the non-intrusive
inspection technology and information used for selection. The new
Customs Container Security Initiative builds upon previous work with
our international trading partners to improve container security
throughout the world's global supply chain.
This work is of critical importance, especially in the maritime
arena. Approximately 95 percent of our Nation's non-NAFTA international
trade moves by water. During a major military deployment, 90 percent of
our military materials move through our nation's seaports. Preserving
those assets and protecting the safety of the men and women who use
them and the communities near them has been, and continues to be, one
of the Administration's top priorities. To accomplish this priority, a
new partnership must be formed. A partnership between the commercial
maritime industry and government must take advantage of existing
commercial security systems, information systems and technological
innovations.
Even with our best efforts, our current transportation system is
groaning under capacity constraints and congestion in many ports is
increasing. To further complicate matters, container traffic, even with
the current economic slowdown, is predicted to double in the next
twenty years. Improving efficiency is one of the key ways to help solve
these capacity and congestion problems. Yet efficiency improvements
must now be looked at through a security lens. Our transportation
system will need to operate both efficiently and securely. These twin
goals of efficiency and security need to be addressed simultaneously.
In summary, the vast volume of trade and traffic through our
nation's ports and across its borders has put immense pressure on our
ability to enforce the nation's laws while facilitating international
trade, even before September 11. After September 11, our challenge has
risen to a new level. Notably cargo trade, which is critical to this
country's economic strength, continues to move through ports with
minimal interruption. It is no surprise that sustaining mobility will
come at a higher cost to all of us as we harden our borders. The
reality is that we are an open society and we cherish our freedoms.
Ultimately, it is incumbent upon our government and our transportation
industry partners to find the balance between appropriate security
measures and the unimpeded movement of cargo.
cargo security in the maritime sector
An analysis of our transportation system in the aftermath of the
events of September 11, 2001 clearly laid bare the susceptibility of
container shipments as a delivery system for an enemy's weapons. Prior
to September 11, DOT's primary concern was the efficient movement of
these containers through the transportation system. The advent of just-
in-time business processes and the use of the transportation system as
a rolling inventory tied the transportation system even more integrally
into the economic vitality of this country.
The Department was well equipped with existing statutory authority
to develop the immediate maritime security response our Nation has
required. These steps have formed the core of our near-term response to
the new maritime and port security environment, and have been based on
current authority and existing resources.
A number of critical steps have been taken since September 11:
The Coast Guard has refocused resources to protect high consequence
targets in the marine environment, including critical bridges, port
facilities and other infrastructure.
The Coast Guard has issued emergency regulations requiring 96-hour
advance notices of arrival for ships arriving in U.S. ports, and we
expect to make that regulation permanent by the summer of 2002.
The Coast Guard Intelligence Coordination Center, working with the
Office of Naval Intelligence, has been tracking inbound high-interest
vessels and providing intelligence on the people, cargoes and vessels
to operational commanders and interested agencies.
The Coast Guard has deployed personnel as Sea Marshals and small
boat escorts to ensure positive control of vessels containing critical
cargoes and in sensitive areas.
The Maritime Administration has been meeting with members of the
maritime industry to examine and address security issues and make
recommendations regarding legislation and policy changes.
The Maritime Administration has heightened security at its Ready
Reserve Force fleet sites and outport locations as well as activated
one ship to assist in Operation Enduring Freedom.
The Maritime Administration, Credential Direct Action Group and the
Transportation Security Administration GO Teams are working to examine
ways that advanced technologies, including smart card, biometrics and
public key infrastructure can be used throughout the maritime and
related industries in order to accurately identify employees working in
security-sensitive areas.
The St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation has been working
closely with its Canadian counterpart and the Coast Guard to heighten
security on the St. Lawrence River and ensure the protection of ocean
access to our Great Lakes ports.
In order to address the security issues surrounding the movement of
marine cargo containers through the international, intermodal
transportation system, the interagency Container Working Group has been
examining ways of improving the coordination of government and business
efforts as they relate to container security; enhancing data
collection; improving the physical security of containers; initiating
activities on the international front; and considering all possible
uses of advanced technologies to improve the profiling of containers
and to increase the physical security of containers.
Working with other port entities, the Coast Guard is developing
tracking mechanisms for all vessels operating in the maritime domain:
within or transiting to U.S. ports and transiting our coastal waters.
The heart of this maritime domain awareness program is accurate
information, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance of all
vessels, cargo, and people extending well beyond our traditional
maritime boundaries. Coast Guard forces will provide enhanced defenses
for critical high-risk vessels and coastal facilities, marine and
otherwise (e.g. nuclear power plants, oil refineries). Close
coordination through Harbor Safety Committees, which help bring
together the many local, State, and Federal agencies that maintain and
protect the harbor, will ensure a well-balanced protective envelope is
sustained at different threat levels.
The Coast Guard has also reorganized its security programs, which
were dispersed throughout the Office of Marine Safety, Security and
Environmental Protection, and consolidated them under a new port
security directorate. This includes the movement of the container
inspection program, which was focused on the structural integrity of
containers and the proper shipment of hazardous materials, to add a
security element to its safety inspections. The Container Inspection
Training Assistance Team (CITAT) was deployed to New York City
following the attacks and assisted in inspecting numerous containers
following the ``just in time'' training they received from the U.S.
Army.
The President's 2003 Budget increases funding for the Coast Guard's
homeland security-related missions (protecting ports and coastal areas,
as well as interdiction activities) by $282 million, to an overall
level of $2.9 billion. After September 11, the Coast Guard's port
security mission grew from approximately 1-2 percent of daily
operations to between 50-60 percent during the heightened threat
periods. Today the port security mission is about 15 percent. In
addition, the Coast Guard has important national security missions such
as illegal immigration and drug interdiction and port security.
Equally important in improving port security has been the
Department's partnering efforts with the international community. At a
recent International Maritime Organization Assembly and intersessional
working group meetings, the Coast Guard, as the lead agency for the
U.S. delegation, introduced numerous security measures for
consideration including vessel, facility and offshore platform security
plans, early implementation of automatic identification system
transponders for certain ships on international voyages and designation
of and training for ship, company and facility security officers. The
U.S. Government also introduced some preliminary container security
measures for consideration with the promise to provide more detailed
papers for the Maritime Safety Committee meeting in May 2002 based upon
the recommendations of the interagency container working group and
Customs' Container Initiative.
Grant Program for Improvement of Port Infrastructure: The
Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2002
appropriated $93.3 million to the Transportation Security
Administration to award competitive grants to critical national
seaports to finance the cost of enhancing facility and operational
security. Such grants are to be awarded based on the need for security
assessments and enhancements as determined by the Under Secretary of
Transportation for Security, the Administrator of the Maritime
Administration, and the Commandant of the Coast Guard. The final grant
approval body will be a board consisting of the Under Secretary of
Transportation for Security, the Administrator of the Maritime
Administration, and the Commandant of the Coast Guard, or their
representatives. Determination of grant awards will be based on
consideration of the most urgent needs from a homeland security
perspective. It is anticipated that initial awards will commence in
June 2002. Port authorities will be able to submit grant applications
electronically through a Departmental website. A small amount of this
money will fund ``proof of concept projects,'' focusing on critical
seaports. Preference will also be given to ports that have already
begun port security enhancement through some demonstrated action. We
are moving very quickly to put this money to work.
cargo security in the motor carrier sector
In response to terrorist threats to the transportation system, the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) initiated a program
of onsite visits to hazardous materials carriers and businesses to
increase their awareness of terrorist threats, to identify potential
weaknesses in carrier security programs, and to report potentially
serious security issues to the appropriate authorities. Since September
26, FMCSA's credentialed field staff have completed almost 41,000
Security Sensitivity Visits (SSVs) throughout the country, focusing on
companies transporting hazardous materials in types and quantities that
terrorists could use as a weapon, truck driver training schools, truck
rental and leasing firms, chemical and petroleum facilities, hazardous
materials shippers, and other operations that could be at risk.
In SSVs, FMCSA personnel meet directly with top company officials
to review security measures and identify areas for tightening
procedures. The SSV also includes a records review to identify any
suspicious activities by carrier employees that could affect security.
To date, 128 referrals of suspicious activities have been forwarded to
the FBI for follow-up. False names or false personnel information,
suspicious inquiries or inappropriate comments, unexplained absences,
and citizenship irregularities are among the activities that provide a
basis for referral. Company officials are being urged to conduct
thorough interviews when hiring new drivers and to verify U.S.
citizenship or appropriate immigration status. In reviewing their
security procedures, management is asked to consider who might have
access to their facilities and storage areas and the adequacy of
protection. Carriers are urged to know their business partners,
vendors, service providers, and their shippers.
FMCSA urges carriers to avoid transporting particularly hazardous
materials near high population centers whenever possible and reinforces
the need to strictly adhere to en route security procedures. Companies
are informed about technical advances that can improve security and
communication, such as satellite tracking, surveillance systems, and
cell phones, as well as state-of-the-art locks and seals, alarms, and
engine controls.
In the future, FMCSA hopes to conduct operational tests of
technologies that could enhance the security of hazardous materials
transportation to demonstrate the potential effectiveness of these
systems. Technologies which could be tested include systems for
preventing unauthorized drivers from operating a vehicle, systems for
detecting a vehicle that is off-route, systems to remotely shut-off the
vehicle engine, and systems that allow law enforcement, shippers, and
consignees to make positive identification of the proper truck driver.
Enhanced communications systems provide another opportunity for
improving security. A good communications system can help detect
patterns of activities that when taken alone may not seem significant
but when taken as a whole may cause concern. Security reminders and
training should be regularly and widely provided to employees and
should be comprehensive, covering overall company security, specific
procedures, and the employee's personal role in security.
The SSV Program is only one component of the agency's program to
promote the secure transportation of hazardous materials. In the
future, compliance reviews of hazardous materials carriers will be
expanded to include a security component. FMCSA is also developing a
program for periodic visits to carriers transporting certain types of
explosives, radioactive materials, and highly toxic substances. These
visits will be more in-depth and include an on-site inspection of
facilities and a written report with security recommendations.
The law enforcement community is an important partner in FMCSA's
effort to enhance cargo security. FMCSA has developed outreach material
and a training course to raise the awareness of law enforcement
officers to the potential threat that commercial vehicles can pose if
they are used as a weapon. With the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance
(CVSA), the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), the
Maryland State Police, and the Virginia State Police, FMCSA developed a
Security Awareness for Enforcement Checklist. The IACP is distributing
500,000 of these checklists to law enforcement officers across the
country. FMCSA also is offering a free 8-hour training course, ``Trucks
& Terrorism,'' to law enforcement agencies.
In another outreach effort, the Teamsters, CVSA, IACP, and the
Maryland State Police are working with FMCSA to inform truck drivers
about measures they can take to protect themselves from potential
terrorist hijackers.
Many states have either experienced instances of fraudulent
activity within their Commercial Driver's License (CDL) programs or
have testing and licensing practices that make them susceptible to
fraud. Fraudulent licensing schemes come in many forms; language
interpreters, State employees, and third party testers have all been
involved. FMCSA is providing funding to States to reduce
vulnerabilities in their CDL programs and is working closely with
States and American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA)
on a special task force on identification security. We are committed to
eliminating fraud in the CDL program and are examining the specific
actions and resources that will be needed to accomplish this.
FMCSA is developing new regulations to implement background checks
for hazardous materials drivers as specified in the USA PATRIOT
legislation. FMCSA is also considering whether additional hazardous
materials rulemakings would enhance the security of the motor carrier
industry.
In addition to security in freight transportation, FMCSA is
concerned about the vulnerability of the commercial passenger carrier
industry to acts of violence. Today, except when crossing the border,
passengers travel without requirements for identification, and baggage
is not routinely screened. Yet motorcoaches travel in close proximity
to some of the Nation's most visible and populated sites, such as
sporting events and tourist attractions. FMCSA is working with charter
and scheduled motorcoach operators to identify additional measures such
as training, enhanced communications, passenger identification
procedures, and security equipment and technologies to reduce the
vulnerability of this vital transportation industry, which carries the
highest volume of passengers of any mode.
While FMCSA has placed a special emphasis on increased security
programs, critical safety enforcement activities have continued,
including issuance of out-of-service orders, conducting compliance
reviews, and complaint investigation. Enforcement targeted at carriers
exhibiting poor safety performance will continue to be a major focus
for FMCSA.
cargo security in the rail sector
The Federal Railroad Administration's (FRA) broad safety authority
and expertise in railroad safety and operational issues give it a
significant role to play in helping to analyze and address security
threats as they relate to rail transportation, including intermodal
transportation. FRA, engaged with other modes in DOT, is investigating
the availability and applicability of technological devices for rail
cars and intermodal vehicles that can track the car, detect attempts to
intrude into the cargo space, and provide remotely controlled locks for
cargo doors (for packaged freight) and valves and hoppers (for bulk
freight). Remote locks can enhance security by remaining closed until
released by a radio signal from a secure location. Satellite
positioning devices could further enhance security by verifying that
the vehicle is at its proper destination before the locks are released.
Since September 11, FRA has been coordinating with freight,
intercity passenger, and commuter railroads, railroad industry groups,
railroad labor unions, and shippers of hazardous materials by railroad
to review current security programs.
The freight railroad industry has established task forces to study
security threats to their physical assets, to train operations, to
information technology systems, to high-value and dangerous cargoes,
and to national security shipments. A classified study in draft form is
now under review and future actions by FRA and the industry will use
these critical action team analyses to plan enhancements to the
increased security already in place. Similar studies are underway
within the short-line and regional railroads and by the commuter rail
carriers.
Working with FRA, individual railroads have already increased
inspections and surveillance at sensitive locations such as bridges and
terminals.
In the coming months, FRA will study the findings in the
vulnerability assessments already underway. The rail transportation of
chemicals for American and foreign industries is vital to the global
economy and, thus, to the larger security of the United States. While
it is impossible to eliminate the risk of terrorist attack on our
railroad transportation infrastructure, FRA is committed to using its
assets as efficiently as possible to improve the already superb record
of rail transportation safety. FRA has begun the steps to establish an
on-going dialogue with America's chemical shippers to coordinate rail
security efforts among shippers and carriers. Finally, FRA will examine
the progress that can be made on three fronts: First, by enhancing the
ability of rail carriers and the Federal government to track known
risks such as shipments of highly volatile or poisonous hazardous
materials. Second, by improving the ability of the railroads and of law
enforcement to detect undeclared dangerous cargoes. Third, by working
with the safety and security community to reinforce the training given
to Federal safety and enforcement personnel so that they can detect
suspicious parameters and more easily identify a security threat.
Working with the Research and Special Programs Administration, the
Department has prepared legislation (introduced as S. 1669) that
includes such security enhancements as allowing Federal inspectors to
remove a shipment of dangerous goods from transportation if an imminent
safety hazard exists.
hazardous materials in transportation and pipeline systems
A number of actions to ensure the security of hazardous materials
in transportation and pipeline systems have been undertaken by the
Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) and plans for
longer-term actions to enhance both hazardous materials transportation
security, as well as pipeline security, are underway.
Steps Taken to Ensure Hazardous Materials Transportation Safety:
RSPA issued emergency exemptions to New York City, Arlington County,
and the States of New York and Virginia. The exemptions provided relief
from requirements of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) to
facilitate clean up and disposal of hazardous materials, including
hazardous waste, at the World Trade Center and Pentagon sites.
In addition, RSPA issued an emergency exemption to the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The FEMA exemption provided relief
from the requirements of the HMR to allow the transportation of various
types of hazardous materials to support recovery and relief efforts to,
from, and within the disaster areas of New York City and Virginia.
RSPA worked closely with the Federal, State, and local authorities,
including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the
U.S. Postal Service (USPS), and the Environmental Protection Agency, to
respond to the anthrax emergencies in Florida, New York, New Jersey,
and Washington, DC. With CDC, RSPA provided advice and assistance to
USPS on appropriate procedures for transporting anthrax-contaminated
mail and developed written guidance on how to transport anthrax-
contaminated material for decontamination and disposal. In addition,
RSPA issued several emergency exemptions to facilitate clean up and
disposal of anthrax-contaminated material at sites in Florida, New
York, New Jersey, and Washington, D.C. These exemptions required
development of a new packaging protocol for shipment of anthrax-
contaminated objects such as mail, office equipment, carpeting, and
furniture.
Since September 11, three security advisories have been issued
warning that transportation security can no longer be treated as a
secondary or tertiary issue and asking shippers and transporters to
review and strengthen security measures, particularly for high-hazard
materials. The most recent security advisory, issued on January 18,
2002, asked the hazardous materials transportation community to be
especially vigilant during the Super Bowl in New Orleans and the
Olympics in Salt Lake City. The advisory suggested that shippers and
transporters implement heightened security measures and considers
altering routes to avoid populated areas where practicable.
RSPA is developing a security template for the Risk Management
Self-Evaluation Framework (RMSEF). RMSEF is a tool to assist
regulators, shippers, carriers, and emergency response personnel for
examining their operations, and considering how they assess and manage
risk. The security template illustrates how risk management methodology
can be used to identify points in the transportation process where
security procedures should be enhanced within the context of an overall
risk management strategy.
RSPA is also developing a Hazardous Materials Transportation
Security Awareness Training Module directed at law enforcement,
industry, and the hazmat community. The training module will be web-
based, posted on the HMS website, and presented at multimodal seminars,
and outreach efforts will be stepped up at the local level.
RSPA created a Hazardous Materials Direct Action Group (Hazmat DAG)
that met with representatives of the hazardous materials industry,
emergency response community, and State governments to discuss
transportation security issues in the wake of the September 11 attacks
and continuing terrorist threats. Participants addressed recently
implemented security measures; identified gaps in current security
arrangements; discussed specific areas of concern and worst-case
scenarios; recommended government actions to augment industry security
programs; and suggested policy, legislative, and regulatory changes
that could enhance the overall security of hazardous materials during
transportation.
RSPA also created an internal DOT Intermodal Hazardous Materials
Transportation Security Task Force, which assessed attack or sabotage
vulnerabilities, evaluated existing security measures, and identified
potential ways to reduce vulnerabilities. The reports of the Hazmat DAG
and the Intermodal Task Force provide a sound basis for moving forward
to enhance hazardous materials transportation security.
On February 14, RSPA published a notice in the Federal Register
advising hazardous materials shippers and carriers of voluntary
measures to enhance the security of hazardous materials shipments
during transportation. The notice is based largely on what we learned
through the Hazmat DAG and the Security Task Force and addresses
personnel, facility, and en route security issues, and includes contact
points for obtaining additional, more detailed information.
The hazardous materials industry already has voluntarily adopted a
number of measures to enhance the security of hazardous materials
shipments and is committed to do whatever it takes to assure that
hazardous materials can continue to be transported safely and securely.
Shippers and carriers have implemented a wide spectrum of actions to
enhance security awareness and improve security for both fixed
facilities and in-transit shipments. Individual companies and industry
associations are conducting threat assessments, identifying targets of
opportunity and areas of vulnerability, and taking concrete actions to
reduce threat possibilities and increase security. Many are working
closely with Federal, State, and local law enforcement and security
personnel, including the U.S. Coast Guard, the FBI, the DOT Office of
Security and Intelligence, and the U.S. Customs Service. Certain
shippers and carriers are upgrading security in and around plant sites,
conducting more stringent background checks on plant employees and
motor carrier drivers, and adjusting routes to avoid populated areas
where feasible. Increasingly, some carriers will only handle hazardous
materials shipments from approved shippers. Many are improving the ways
they identify and track hazardous materials shipments.
Steps Taken to Ensure Pipeline Security: In addition to work on
hazardous materials transportation, RSPA is addressing security issues
for pipelines through its Office of Pipeline Safety. The security of
the pipeline system is of strategic importance due to the large volumes
of materials transported by pipeline and their critical importance to
the National economy as well as defense. The events of September 11
provided us a unique understanding of the state of security
preparedness within the pipeline industry--and RSPA discovered there is
work to be done. To ensure that pipelines are secure to the maximum
extent possible, RSPA is now taking a number of measures. Additionally,
within the pipeline safety program, RSPA is cooperating with the new
Transportation Security Administration, to ensure RSPA provides a
unified approach to meeting transportation security challenges.
On September 11, RSPA responded immediately to security concerns
for the Nation's pipeline systems by making over 1,000 telephone calls
jointly with its State partners to pipeline operators, to assess the
security at pipeline facilities and to monitor events. In recent
months, RSPA streamlined this communication process, in coordination
with the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, and incorporated it into its daily operations for
distribution of security information and threat warnings.
RSPA is securing its own information systems. One action on
securing information concerns the National Pipeline Mapping System,
accessed by a website. To reduce the opportunity for misuse, RSPA
limited accessibility to the website by installing a password
protection system. RSPA is also processing security clearances for key
federal, state and industry security personnel, and conducting
conference calls every two to three weeks with all the pipeline safety
agencies to review recent developments, toward the goal of providing a
seamless Federal and State oversight program of pipeline security.
Reauthorization: However, all of RSPA's efforts on security for
both hazardous materials transportation and pipelines may be undermined
if these two programs are not reauthorized. Toward this goal, the
Administration submitted a proposal for reauthorization of the
Hazardous Materials Transportation Safety program, which was introduced
by Senator Hollings and Senator McCain on November 8, 2001. The
proposal includes a number of provisions to clarify and strengthen
RSPA's authority to address hazardous materials security issues.
Although current law does not preclude the Department from
preventing intentional misuse or release of hazardous materials in
transportation, RSPA's program is primarily focused on preventing
unintentional releases. Therefore RSPA is seeking clarification and
strengthening of the Department's authority to address hazardous
materials transportation security and supports Congressional efforts in
this area. The result will be a comprehensive hazardous materials
safety program that addresses a broad spectrum of possible threats to
public safety.
conclusion
The Department of Transportation is glad to have had the
opportunity today to discuss the steps we are taking as we build a new
operational baseline for cargo security in America. Like any network,
the cargo transportation system is in a constant state of growth and
change. The system we create must therefore be one that is capable of
evolving over time, and where the expectation of that evolution is
clearly established. Finally, the system must fully recognize the
intermodal nature of transportation. Cargo that is unloaded from a ship
today in a seaport will move quickly to other modes of transportation.
There is no better example than the cargo container--a phenomenon that
has been successful precisely because it is fundamentally intermodal--a
cargo container arriving at a U.S. seaport today can be virtually
anywhere in the heartland of America via truck and/or rail tomorrow.
Accordingly, security measures must be fully integrated throughout all
of the modes of transportation.
I know that the witnesses will be able to expand on our efforts and
that all of us at DOT are looking forward to working with the
leadership and members of the House and the Senate in successfully
building the new standard the nation requires.
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS DIRECT ACTION GROUP
Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Mr. Magaw.
Mr. Magaw, your testimony states that Ms. Engleman's
agency, the Research and Special Programs Administration,
created a hazardous material direct action group. According to
the testimony you gave us, that group identified gaps in
current security arrangements, discussed specific areas of
concern and worst case scenarios, recommended government
actions to augment industry security programs, and suggested
policy, legislative, and regulatory changes. I understand these
recommendations include some very far reaching actions. Ms.
Engleman, maybe you could tell us precisely when you submitted
those recommendations to the Secretary's office.
Ms. Engleman. Thank you, Madam Chairman. This intermodal
working group is a very active group. We set it up within about
10 days or less following the September 11 event. We gave them
a stringent 30-day requirement to come back with a set of
recommendations. The recommendations did indeed address all the
areas that you said. The group consisted of a total DOT team.
We had Coast Guard, we had highways, we had motor carriers, we
had rail, we had ourselves, and then we also reached out
internally to general counsel and other areas within the
Department of Transportation. We submitted that to the National
Infrastructure Security Committee and added that, in addition
to the other 10 or 15 direct action groups that were working at
that very time. We are implementing many of those
recommendations. We are still working on that entire set of
goals.
Senator Murray. When did you actually send the
recommendations to the Secretary's office?
Ms. Engleman. I do not have the specific date, ma'am. I
believe it--I know it was in November, but I don't have the
specific day that we submitted it to the Secretary.
Senator Murray. Well, Mr. Magaw, when can we actually
expect these recommendations to be acted on?
Mr. Magaw. Well, I will today make an inquiry with the
Secretary's office to see what the status of those are and will
get back to you with that answer.
[The information follows:]
Two notices were published in the Federal Register in response to
recommendations from the Hazardous Materials Direct Action Group. On
February 14, 2002, the Research and Special Programs released
``Advisory Notice: Enhancing the Security of Hazardous Materials in
Transportation'' and on May 2, 2002, released ``Hazardous Materials:
Security Requirements for Offerors and Transporters of Hazardous
Materials'' for comment. The Department will continue to act on
recommendations from these reports through additional regulatory
actions and non-regulatory actions such as initiating hazardous
materials security focused outreach and training.
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS RULEMAKING
Senator Murray. We have not seen any regulations at this
point.
Ms. Engleman. Madam Chairman, we have a rulemaking on one
of those significant regulations, that is working to
continually review and consolidate these issues. We also have
had a variety of other actions that we've done on security
alerts, inspection teams, working with industry, and a variety
of direct action groups, as previously mentioned. We also have
issued announcements. We do have what we call a risk management
self-evaluation framework which is up and on the Web. But I'd
like to share with you that that is not a mere guideline. This
document is pretty comprehensive. I would submit that it is not
just an evaluation tool, but actually a consulting tool.
Senator Murray. It is my understanding that everything so
far has been voluntary or advisory. There have been no
regulations issued at this point.
Ms. Engleman. That's correct, ma'am. As you know, we have
to go through the administrative rulemaking procedures. That
does take time. After you go through the notice of proposed
rulemaking, there's at least a 60-day period, and then
obviously rulemaking can take up to a year. However, we don't
want to wait for the administrative bureaucracy to delay
action, and so we've gone to industry, the actual people
involved, to help them to start the process now. And we also
have our own actions to work with.
Senator Murray. What is your target date for when we are
going to see regulations?
Ms. Engleman. Ma'am, it's not a single target date. This is
literally a daily activity, a weekly activity. We don't have an
end goal as in ``we will finish everything within x days,''
because this will never stop. This will be an ongoing activity
to continually review, continually update, continually
outreach, continually train, and continually attempt to secure
the needs of the Nation.
TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Senator Murray. We know that every day there are over
800,000 shipments of hazardous materials. And we all know what
the tragic consequences would be if a tank car carrying one of
these lethal, hazardous materials were to spill or explode in a
densely populated area. Mr. Clapp, Mr. Rutter, if you could
tell us how realistic it is to think we could actually reroute
some of these dangerous hazardous materials so as to avoid
major metropolitan areas. Mr. Clapp.
Mr. Clapp. Thank you, Madam Chairperson. We of course have
existing routing regulations in place that, as you point out in
your statement, were designed with safety in mind, as opposed
to security. However, for this particular issue I think the two
go hand in hand. You would want to route hazmat by the safest
route, whether it's a security issue or an accidental release
that we're dealing with.
We know that there has been a considerable increase in
activity by State and local jurisdictions with respect to
establishing hazardous materials routing. Those are done
according to existing Federal standards that are a part of our
regulations.
Senator Murray. Are you considering mandating the most
hazardous materials be rerouted to avoid densely populated
areas?
Mr. Clapp. We already have regulations in place which
govern the choice of routes for hazard material shipments.
First of all, there is a general regulation which applies to
the carriers' selection of routes, because some routes, of
course, are not designated as such. State and local government
and Indian tribes have the right to establish routes in their
areas of jurisdiction according to these standards.
Senator Murray. So basically you are relying on the local
rules and regulations and are not looking at anything from the
Federal level?
Mr. Clapp. No. We already have regulations in the Federal
Register that require the driver to select a route which is
most appropriate from the standpoint of safety for the
hazardous materials transportation that he is performing at
that time. The routing requirements reflect the consequences of
an accidental release.
Senator Murray. Do you think the current security threats
that we now have should make us think about having some more
restrictions or stronger restrictions at this time than what we
currently have?
Mr. Clapp. The answer is yes. We are developing a
rulemaking with respect to certain particular types of
hazardous materials such as explosives. It frankly comes out of
the task force that Administrator Engleman was discussing. With
respect to the extension of additional security regulations
that include routing for certain high-consequence hazardous
commodities. We are in the process of developing an Advance
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to go out on that now.
Senator Murray. Mr. Rutter, for your agency?
Mr. Rutter. Part of how we're approaching how to deal with
the transportation of those hazardous materials depends on two
issues. One is, in considering the possibilities of routing
around metropolitan areas, that we have to be concerned about
the infrastructure in place. Many times major class one routes
between cities that are maintained to the highest standards are
those that are the most heavily trafficked and by their nature
go to and through major cities. If we were to take actions to
require those goods to move around those cities, we may be
using rail lines that are maintained to a lower level of
capacity or safety.
The other thing to consider is that routing decisions in
many cases are dependent on who's generating the chemicals and
who's using the chemicals. In many cases, those generators and
users are located in metropolitan areas.
One of the things that you had mentioned in your statement
having to do with the use and manufacture of chlorine, for
instance, is a matter of making sure that the people who use
those chemicals can have access to it. Most water treatment
facilities are in major metropolitan areas. And if we take
actions to restrict the movement of those chemicals, we may
endanger the intended uses of them, such as for water treatment
facilities. So we're trying to balance the needs of those who
need to use those chemicals and to make sure that the
transportation of them is as safe as possible.
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SHIPMENTS
Senator Murray. Let me ask one more question. Then I am
going to run and vote and come right back.
There has been a lot of speculation as to whether some of
the more deadly hazardous materials could be transported in a
form that is either less concentrated or perhaps less lethal.
Ms. Engleman, let me ask you. Have you explored this idea with
the chemical and hazmat industries to see if there is a way to
transport some of these shipments in a less deadly form?
Ms. Engleman. Yes, ma'am. We're looking at all aspects of
the shipment: container designs, container equipment, the
actual product itself. All of this is on the table to discuss.
Senator Murray. Have you made any formal recommendations to
the Secretary in terms of this?
Ms. Engleman. Not to my knowledge, ma'am.
Senator Murray. There have been no recommendations
submitted on hazardous material, any recommendations
whatsoever? I mean, we are 6 months, 7 months away from
September 11, and we have not had any recommendations to the
Secretary on any of this?
Ms. Engleman. No, ma'am. Perhaps I misunderstood your
question. I thought you were relating directly to specifics as
far as individual products.
Senator Murray. We should be looking at some ways to have
safer transport of some of these hazardous chemicals. I know
you have been looking at some things. But you have not made any
recommendations specifically, even though we are 7 months after
September 11?
Ms. Engleman. Ma'am, we've made a variety of
recommendations covering the entire gamut of hazmat material,
everything from the actual product to its containment, shipping
process, delivery, labeling, and packaging, the entire product.
So when you ask about the recommendations, yes, ma'am, we've
put together an entire package, including regulation review,
interagency support and organization, and coordination. Please
note, much of what we do to provide safe shipment of hazardous
materials, and have done fairly successfully, also addresses
many of the security concerns. That which is safe often is
secure.
So sometimes we don't have to have a security overlay, if
you will, to still ensure the safe shipment. We can address it
through our safety regulations, which are already in place.
This is part of our review to determine if we needed to add
additional security overlay, because as you correctly stated in
your opening comments, prior to 9/11, we focused on safety and
the accident versus security and the incident. So we have gone
very precisely through to determine if any additional work
needs to be done to provide security that would make a
difference. In the majority of much of what we do, though,
safety is enough. If they are safe, they are secure.
Senator Murray. I have a number of additional questions in
this area. Senator Shelby is going to be back in just a minute.
As soon as he gets back, he will start his questioning, but I
am going to recess for just a few minutes while we go and vote.
IDENTIFYING HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Senator Murray. The hearing is back in order.
Let me just say while I am directing these questions to
individuals, I want to emphasize that other witnesses really
should chime in when appropriate. All these issues have impacts
in all the modes that we have represented here this morning. I
really do want you to feel free to comment and add comments as
you feel are necessary.
I will continue with questions until Senator Shelby gets
back and then allow him to move forward.
BALANCE SAFETY AND SECURITY
Ms. Engleman, let me go back to you again. Every day there
are 800,000 shipments of hazardous materials moving on our
highways, on our railways, and our seaways, all of which are
required to be marked with placards to identify the type of
hazard that is inherent in the cargo, such as poisonous gas or
an explosive. In addition to the placards, some of the most
dangerous shipments require additional markings. For example,
highway shipments of chlorine require that tank trucks are
marked in white four-inch block letters, the word ``chlorine''
on the side of the truck. The fact of these markings are to
warn people to stay away and to allow emergency response
personnel to properly respond to spills and leaks. The problem
here lies in the fact that at the same time we are achieving
our safety goals, we are also drawing potentially unwelcome
attention to shipments that could potentially be used as a
weapon of mass destruction.
Ms. Engleman, what are you doing to balance the safety and
security issues that seem to be at odds here?
Ms. Engleman. Thank you, Madam Chairman. You are absolutely
correct that it is a balance of issues that we're trying to
address. We're very sensitive to the concerns that placards may
indeed help identify hazmat material shipments as a target, if
you will, of opportunity for terrorists or criminals. But we
have to weigh the additional security risk against the
demonstrated safety benefits of placarding, for the emergency
responders, for anyone on the accident site, for anyone who
would be involved in trying to support recovery efforts. And so
to protect firefighters, policemen, emergency personnel, rapid
identification of the hazmat material is absolutely critical.
We also believe that a sophisticated terrorist will not
rely on our placarding system to identify the vehicles or the
container or the shipment, in order to do harm, if you will,
with the product. So, as such, removing the placards and
removing hazardous communication markings could truly place our
firefighters and policemen, ambulance technicians, and other
emergency responders at risk and increase their vulnerability
at an accident site.
Senator Murray. Is there any technology available to switch
to a more nondescript method of identifying hazardous cargos
that also meets the needs of the emergency response community?
Ms. Engleman. We are reviewing a variety of possible
technologies that could assist us in this, everything from
advanced sensor reading or tracking devices, and we are
reviewing the possibility of utilizing this to support our
efforts. So this is something that's on the table. But the main
consideration that we have right now is if there is an
accident, because we hope sincerely that accidents will remain
our concern, rather than incidents.
The majority of the time that we will need to be on site
will be a safety issue, an accident, and we don't want to deter
from the ability of first responders to be on site or to cost
them time.
PAYING FOR TECHNOLOGY
Senator Murray. Who should pay for that new technology?
Should it be us, the Government, or the industry?
Ms. Engleman. Usually, when you invest in technology--I
actually come from an R&D background--I think that it's
something that you have to consider the cost versus the
economic benefit to the industry. We need to look at what's
going to be the best way to achieve that through a cost/benefit
analysis.
Senator Murray. Beyond that, though, is this something we
should be thinking about in terms of our budgeting? Should the
Government be responsible for paying that, or are we going to
require industry to do it?
Ms. Engleman. I can't answer definitively at this time.
However, if you look at past practices on these issues, no
matter where they are, whether they're safety, security, or
other issues, we have a whole breadth of responses. Sometimes
the Government pays 100 percent; sometimes it's industry;
sometimes it's a 50-50 split. It's based on the cost/benefit
and what's the best way to achieve the goal and not be onerous
to either party.
Senator Murray. Mr. Clapp or Mr. Rutter, do either one of
you want to respond to this issue? Mr. Clapp.
Mr. Clapp. We have discussed this internally, and I believe
Administrator Engleman's views are entirely consistent with our
own.
Mr. Magaw. Madam Chairman, can I just make a comment here?
Senator Murray. Yes.
DRIVER AWARENESS AND SECURITY
Mr. Magaw. You know, the other thing that we want to
address very quickly also is the driver of these vehicles.
Training them in terms of what to look for, most of the
time. When you will use something like this to do harm, you
will case it. You will find out where they are parking it. You
will find out when they are leaving terminals, and when they
are coming back to terminals. Drivers who are on the highway
can look for things that a tailing vehicle or an observation
vehicle would give away, that there is some kind of planning
going on or in fact an act about to occur.
So more driver awareness, more driver security is needed.
How secure are we in terms of that particular driver? Could a
sleeper cell or a terrorist group come on board and actually be
drivers of these vehicles? So we are going to look at that area
very closely also.
Senator Murray. Will we be seeing some recommendations on
this?
Mr. Magaw. Well, it is one of the items that we have
identified and we are going to look at. I can't imagine that we
wouldn't have some very good suggestions coming out of this.
Senator Murray. Mr. Rutter, do you want to comment?
Mr. Rutter. Well, Senator, one of the, I guess, ongoing
success stories that had of predated 9/11 was the efforts of
both kinds of modes of transportation, in the industry itself,
working with local emergency planning committees and with first
responders. One of the programs that is in use now is called,
``Operation Respond'' and provides those with the need to
know--the first responders information about the consist--down
to ``This is what that car is,'' ``This is what it's
carrying,'' ``Here's how it's manufactured,'' ``Here's the
chemical information about that commodity.''
There are in existence some technological approaches that
provide first responders some of that information. But the key
is how do you help those first responders visibly know what's
on those trains--what's on a train or what's in a truck? And so
the technology has to be based on the ability of a first
responder to gain information about that particular shipment.
There may be possibilities of doing away with the placard,
but, you know, who wants to go marching up to the car to wave
some sort of AEI indicator? We're trying to find ways of
building on what's already in place, that relationship between
the shippers, the carriers, and the first responders, to find
additional ways of enhancing the capabilities of those systems.
EXEMPTION OF CERTAIN HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Senator Murray. Ms. Engleman, let me go back to you. I
understand that there are regulations that have been in place
since 1990 that exempt smaller quantities of certain hazardous
materials from having to be registered or placarded. In
addition, I am told your agency exempts the intrastate transfer
of ammonium nitrate in quantities far larger than Timothy
McVeigh used to blow up the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City.
Given the new level of concern regarding terrorist attacks,
should your agency not review whether these hazardous materials
should be exempted from your regulations or whether the
threshold should be lowered even further?
Ms. Engleman. Senator, part of the challenge, of course,
will be record keeping for any type of registration and
tracking of such. We don't want to impose any severe burdens
especially on small businesses. As you are aware, there are
over 40,000 small businesses that act as our shippers, if not
more.
Senator Murray. So we have not moved because we are worried
about regulating industry?
Ms. Engleman. We should always be concerned about over-
regulating industry, ma'am, to ensure that we have economic
prosperity balanced with----
Senator Murray. Should the concern be regulation or should
the concern be security, in light of what we now know about
terrorist activity?
Ms. Engleman. I believe we have to balance both regulatory
and security concerns.
Senator Murray. Which way do you tip?
Ms. Engleman. I believe we have to balance both regulation
and security concerns and the need for economic prosperity.
Senator Murray. Mr. Magaw, do you want to comment?
Mr. Magaw. Well, I think that we have to be careful of the
bottom line of the business person in this country. I would
lean towards the security side, but would ask also that
Congress help fund that side.
Senator Murray. Mr. Clapp or Ms. Engleman, shouldn't we be
concerned about the fact that your agency exempts potential
explosives such as ammonium nitrate from many regulations? Mr.
Clapp.
Mr. Clapp. Well, we do not exempt potential explosives. I
think your statement was to the effect that some States permit
the intrastate transportation of ammonium nitrate----
Senator Murray. Intra, right.
Mr. Clapp [continuing]. In larger quantities than they are
allowed under the Federal regulations. Prior to October 11,
1998 we did not have preemption authority over intrastate
regulations, although our grant program, in fact, specifically
requires the States' regulations to be in concert with our own.
I think it is definitely worthy of consideration. If there
are instances where some States do permit larger quantities of
ammonium nitrate to be shipped intrastate than are permitted
under Federal regulation, then yes, we should look at that.
HAZARD MATERIALS ACTION GROUP
Senator Murray. Ms. Engleman, how did your hazmat direct
action group address the issues in your recommendations to the
Secretary?
Ms. Engleman. First of all, we put together an intermodal
hazmat group, which was the 30-day group which I mentioned
earlier. That consisted of all modes within the Department of
Transportation, as well as legal staff. We provided the formal
documentation, which I do need to clarify, and state that we
are implementing many of these.
I don't want to mislead you, to say that we're waiting just
for regulations. Much of what we're doing was internal
coordination, communication, and security advisories. We
actually have put out a product every month since the event,
whether they be specific security notices, advisories, or
interviews, or working with the major associations, as well as
individual companies, and other agencies. We provided the
formal notebook and plan to the National Infrastructure
Security Committee, which the Department established under
Secretary Mineta's leadership. We additionally added what we
call the direct action groups.
The direct action groups broke down all the major issues
into topic area, as well as specific issues. Each of those
direct action groups also added to our body of knowledge. We
provided all of these information materials and recommendations
to the modes and to the Secretary; interdepartmentally we are
implementing much of what we had discussed, because much of
that we can do without requiring regulations.
Senator Murray. Senator Shelby.
NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
In my opening statement, I stated my belief that it is
essential for the Department to develop a national risk
assessment of the entire transportation system. This would form
the basis of a plan to make the system more secure and should
provide a method to address the greatest risks immediately.
Mr. Magaw, has TSA begun this process? Also I would be
interested in hearing how this effort is coordinated with the
Office of the Secretary and various modal administrations, if
you care to comment.
Mr. Magaw. The Office of Homeland Security, which we have
interfaced very closely with and will continue, is doing
assessments right now. What we want to do is fit into it as
part of the national plan. We believe that you have to have a
risk assessment. It has to be a national risk assessment in
order to coordinate all the kind of things that you are
concerned about.
What we are doing now is--at TSA--is we are hiring
personnel. I have told the administrators, ``We need to hire
personnel who have law enforcement background, but people who
also have trucking background or railroad background.'' So I am
working with them to hire the proper staff, after which then we
can move forward and coordinate and work with other entities to
make sure that we have a national plan and that we develop our
priorities and our budgets and our strategic plan based on
that.
TRANSPORTATION SECURITY
Senator Shelby. Mr. Magaw. And I'll direct this question to
all of you on the panel. Aside from aviation, what do you
perceive to be the most immediate and serious transportation
security issue? And what immediate actions or steps are you
pursuing or should the Department be pursuing to mitigate the
risk while a more comprehensive risk assessment is being
undertaken by the TSA? You have immediate problems; you have
got long range problems. Mr. Magaw, you want to lead that off?
Mr. Magaw. Yes, sir. When any terrorist group plans to
attack, it is an area that is or an area that will make the
most impact--and we could see that clearly on September 11. My
concern is that as we are paying more attention to aviation.
Funds are being appropriated for security surveys and
protections. The issue that you are sitting here about this
morning, cargo and transportation of goods, is my immediate
concern--in terms of where loopholes might be. The cargo area
and the baggage area are places that they would try to find
weaknesses. In fact, we find that there are elements of the
terrorist groups that are canvassing airports and
transportation systems.
The other area that concerns me is rail. If you look at
Union Station here in D.C., without me being overly specific
about it, you will be able to see why my concern is here also.
Senator Shelby. What about the other panelists? Do you have
any other comments on it, Mr. Rutter?
Mr. Rutter. Well, within a week after September 11, the
most immediate concern I had was making sure that we did
conduct that kind of risk assessment. Unlike other modes, the
railroad infrastructure is privately owned instead of publicly
funded. They were in a position to know more about their
systems. They had the ability to apply some very significant
resources toward doing that level of assessment. And we
directed them and have been cooperating with them as they have
done that. That product at the industry level has been
completed as of December, and the FRA has engaged a consultant
to test the results of that vulnerability assessment and
mitigation measures that are necessary, to make sure that not
only the carriers' economic interests are being balanced, but
that the public interest is being protected.
As we do that, we're also conducting outreach to shippers,
chemical manufacturers, and labor, at the same time.
Immediate steps we also took before we waited for those
projects to begin are--I guess I'd point out two. The carriers
themselves have ratcheted back on the transparency of
information about their operations. As those of you who are
familiar with STB efforts on shipper concerns, one of the
things shippers have been asking for is, ``Where's my stuff? I
want to be able to know where my goods are.'' And so railroads
have, over the past couple of years, done very well at creating
Web-based information systems on, ``Here's where your stuff is
exactly. It's in this town right here.''
The problem was, up until September 11, those were fairly
open to just about anybody. And what the carriers have done,
working with those shippers, is to put on more control of who
has access to that kind of information. And it's not as widely
distributed as it was.
The other thing that's been done is to take advantage of
the employees that are out there on the railroad system itself.
Generally over 200,000 people are in a position to see what's
happening, and to know who's supposed to be on their properties
and who's not. And the carriers working with those labor groups
have done a very good job of helping to train those employees
to know what to look for, know who to report that to, and to be
able to pass that information to railroad police forces, who
are given interstate law enforcement capabilities. They are
licensed and commissioned officers and have the ability to so
something with that information. So we've controlled the amount
of transparency to those who would use that information against
us. And we've taken advantage of leveraging the abilities and
the capabilities of the employees out there to keep their eyes
and ears open.
TRANSPORTATION VULNERABILITIES
Mr. McMahon. Mr. Senator, as the Under Secretary indicated
and some of the administrators mentioned, a week following the
September attacks Secretary Mineta established the National
Infrastructure Security Committee to deal specifically with the
security issues in the surface transportation field.
Administrator Engleman and others have mentioned that. And that
included maritime, hazmat, pipelines, surface transportation,
which is highway and motor carriers, rail, and transit. And
that included people from industry, hundreds of people, over
hundreds of hours of meetings throughout the fall, and many
recommendations. But from that, one of the clear problems or
challenges was containers--sea containers, trucks, and rail
containers coming across borders.
So in December, the Department established an Interagency
Container Working Group, which is co-chaired and includes
participants from industry and from other Federal agencies,
including not only Transportation and Treasury, but Defense,
Agriculture, Justice, Commerce, Health and Human Services and
again, many people from the private sector.
The four subgroups in our container working group have
included information technology, security technologies,
business practices, and international affairs. And we submitted
an initial report to the Office of Homeland Security on
February 1. So the Department is taking the issue of container
security, which we hear quite a bit about in the press,
extremely seriously.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Clapp, do you have any comments on
this?
Mr. Clapp. Yes, Senator. Your question had to do with
vulnerabilities.
Senator Shelby. That is right.
Mr. Clapp. And it seems to me that----
Senator Shelby. What are you doing immediately and then
long term?
Mr. Clapp. Well, unlike my friend Allan at the railroads,
we have somewhat the opposite circumstance----
Senator Shelby. You do.
Mr. Clapp [continuing]. In motor carriers. We have hundreds
of thousands of motor carriers in this country. We are a free
and open society and an entrepreneurial-based society. As both
of you recognized in your statements, the efficiency, speed,
and reliability of transportation have been uppermost in our
minds and indeed in our performance of our transportation
systems. So one has to regard that as a vulnerability.
The way we have tried to approach that in my particular
agency is to go out and have face-to-face meetings with over
40,000 carriers of hazardous materials that we would identify
as being of relatively high consequence. And we have sat down
with the officials of those carriers. We have reviewed their
security programs, or the lack thereof, within their programs.
We have reviewed a series of recommendations suited to their
particular kind of circumstance, for a security planning,
implementation, training and vigilance. We have also reviewed
the driver rosters of those carriers.
We are just about concluded with the first round. As of
March 31, we have about 400 or so to go and we have made 128
referrals to the FBI of potentially suspicious people,
activities, applicants or other things of that nature. We have
already seen the benefit of having done these visits, in that
we have seen evidence of where the carriers have acted upon
this information. They have reported when they saw suspicious
activities, as Mr. Magaw referred to earlier. If somebody seems
to be following the truck or is taking an unusual interest in
it; it seems to us that was the most rational approach to this
very open system that we have. We have to help the carriers
adjust to the new normalcy; things will never be like they
were, and vigilance is the price of freedom.
Senator Shelby. Admiral.
MARITIME VULNERABILITY
Admiral Pluta. Thank you, Senator Shelby, Madam Chairman.
As you know, we consider the maritime mode of transportation
very valuable to our country, as over 90 percent of the imports
and exports into our country come through the maritime mode.
It's also most vulnerable.
As we went through the Seaport Security Study that was
conducted several years back, in addition to our response and
our prevention activities that we undertook in the Coast Guard
after 9/11, we set aside five basic goals for maritime
security. In a very methodical way, and with a lot of outreach
and consultation, we figured that the best investment would be
made in awareness. And so Maritime Domain Awareness is very
important to us, knowing what's coming our way, not only cargo,
but people, ships, and also the ports from which they came.
Our second goal was to control and pay attention to the
movement of high interest vessels, which gets into hazardous
material, cruise ships, and other environments; they could be
used as weapons or as targets.
Our third goal is increasing Coast Guard presence, both as
a deterrent to somebody who wants to do something untoward and
also to provide better response, as in our new Maritime Safety
and Security Teams that will be coming out this summer.
Our fourth goal is critical infrastructure protection of
our country. There are thousands of pieces of critical
infrastructure that we need to protect that are either at the
water's edge or on the water. And finally domestic and
international outreach, because the solution to a U.S. attack
has to be a global solution, not just a domestic solution.
Since 9/11, we undertook a very rapid rulemaking to require
a 96-hour advance notice of arrival if someone is sending a
ship to our country. Formerly, it was limited to some ships and
was a 24-hour advance notice of arrival. We moved that out to
give us more time to process the ships, the names of the crew
members, the names of the passengers, and the cargo and such.
We also established an 800 number at our National Response
Center for people to call in suspicious acts and that's been
used quite frequently by people who see things that don't look
right on the waterways of our country and in our ports.
We also have been working with a commercial carrier to
develop a means of ship alerting, a silent alarm similar to
what aircraft pilots might have to squawk a code if they're
being hijacked. We have a device that one of the companies
worked with us on to send a silent alarm on a ship back to our
national response center to alert them that something is
happening on board.
In addition, our captains of the ports have broad statutory
authorities and responsibilities and, not waiting for
regulations, have used the vehicles of the captain of the port
orders, security zones, and safety zones, to implement
additional security requirements, and have established port
security committees in the ports of our country so that all the
stakeholders could get together and figure out how to improve
security without being told what to do.
At the same time, we're using a vehicle that we have,
called a navigation and vessel inspection circular, to go out
with interim guidelines on things such as port facility
security, vessel security, and such, so that everybody who is
desperately in need of an answer to ``what do I do?'' will have
some guidance from us on what to do on a temporary basis. We'll
follow that up with a notice of proposed rulemaking later this
year, which would go to final rule with the timing of the
Administrative Procedures Act in--next year in 2003.
On the international front, because this won't just take a
domestic solution, Admiral Loy and I went to IMO and made a
strong presentation to get their attention focused on maritime
security last November at the assembly meeting, and we got
overwhelming support in an assembly resolution to accelerate
IMO's activities. I headed the U.S. delegation to the very well
attended inter-sessional work group on maritime security, in
February, where we started the process of coming up with
international standards for vessel security plans, facilities
security plans, port vulnerability assessments and all the 14
different maritime security concepts that we imbedded in our
U.S. paper.
We'll follow up with a meeting in May at the Maritime
Security Council of IMO to conclude our work of the Maritime
Security Work Group, and a diplomatic conference is set for
December to put those requirements into effect on an
international basis, all of which, in my opinion, compared to
other IMO work I've done, is light speed time for IMO. They've
been very responsive, and the countries have been very
responsive to our needs.
So that's, in effect, in a nutshell, Senator, what we've
done. And I don't care to go any further unless you care to
pursue any of those.
Senator Shelby. Ms. Engleman, do you have any comments?
Ms. Engleman. Yes. I'll try to keep mine brief, sir.
Senator Shelby. Okay.
PIPELINE VULNERABILITY
Ms. Engleman. In addition to all the internal work that we
did, I would be remiss if I did not additionally share with
you, that we've gone through worst case scenarios, best case
scenarios, and vulnerability assessments for both hazardous
material as well as our pipelines. I know Senator Murray is
specifically interested in that.
On the day of the event, we made over 1,000 individual
calls to pipeline owner/operators, personal calls, to ensure
that they understood the security necessities that we had to
immediately address. For pipelines, we have done vulnerability
assessments, working closely with industry on a one-on-one
basis literally with the individual operator, not just with the
associations or the like. We have biweekly telephone
conversations, meetings coordinating security needs and
addressing them. Each of the major owner/operators have put
together individual security plans and have brought them to our
attention. We are reviewing them and working with them to
improve them.
On the hazardous materials side, we've had workshops
identifying best practices. We've printed brochures, produced
videos, and put out CDs. We've had over half a dozen multimodal
seminars throughout the Nation, with over 300 shippers in
attendance at each. We will continue to have this outreach.
In January, we put together a whole plan of action. And
yes, it is voluntary. But if you look at the details of the
security plans that we have put together, we have provided how-
to books, if you will, that are either low cost or free--
they're on our Web site--to all hazardous materials shippers.
That was in January. In February, in the Federal Register,
again we have specifically put in a security plan, personnel
security, facilities security, and en-route security.
If you look at the very specific items, you will see that
we are addressing security in a total fashion.
So in addition to the advisories, and addition to the
internal review, we are putting a product into the system at
the one-on-one level, to ensure that people know how to do what
they need to do to add security to their already in-place
safety practices.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
SHIPPER INFORMATION
Mr. Magaw. There has been a lot of concern also, Senator,
that only 2 to 4 percent of the containers are checked at
ports. To try to check a much larger number than that would
require a huge in number of people. What everyone here, both
nationally and internationally, has been working on is to try
to have better quality information about the shipper. If you
have better quality information about the shipper and the
contents that are being shipped, some of the things apply that
each of them have mentioned. Then your 2 to 4 percent really is
not a bad figure, because you would only be examining those
which caused you to have suspicion, based on the information
that, for instance, Admiral Pluta gave. They will know very
quickly about that international cargo by the various means
that they have, very high quality information. Therefore,
Customs probably only has to look at a very small percentage,
those that will jump out to them as being risky.
300-FOOT PERIMETER RULE AT AIRPORTS
Senator Shelby. The 300-foot perimeter rule--the airport
security bill provided for a process whereby airports could
gain relief from rules prohibiting parking within 300 feet of
airport terminals after consulting with local law enforcement
and after adequate safeguards had been put in place. This issue
was raised in an earlier hearing, and Secretary Jackson's
response would lead us to believe that the Department had a
fairly standard process for reviewing airport applications for
relief.
It has been brought to our attention since then that
airports across the country are still waiting for the TSA to
comprehensively review this issue and consider individual
applications for relief.
Mr. Magaw, is Transportation Security Administration still
working on a case-by-case basis with airports that have been
denied relief to this point? And can you give us some sense of
when you will have developed an economically viable 300-foot
rule approach for the Nation's airports?
Mr. Magaw. What we are doing is looking at each airport,
because each of them are different, Senator. We have most of
those resolved now. I think there are only five or six----
Senator Shelby. Okay.
Mr. Magaw [continuing]. Out there that haven't been
relieved because 300 feet for some of them is in somebody
else's yard or a field. So that is important to us, and we are
addressing it, sir.
EXPLOSIVES TRACE DETECTION SYSTEM
Senator Shelby. Trace detection equipment is very
important, is it not? I note that one airport is using trace
detection equipment as their primary explosive detection
regime. Should we interpret this to mean that the Department is
open to an explosive detection system regime that does not rely
exclusively or even primarily on certified EDS equipment?
Should we interpret this to mean that explosive detection and
baggage security should be a multilayered and varied system? In
other words, how do we read this?
Mr. Magaw. Yes, it should be multilayered. My concern is
that 10 months from now we will reach the goal that the law has
asked us to reach, and lo and behold, we will have technology
that is going out of existence or that there is some better
technology on the market. So we are looking at everything.
Right now there is no one item, no one technology that
covers all of our concerns and the concerns that you have. So
we are trying to figure out what two technologies together or
three technologies together would meet the needs for the kind
of risks that that particular airport has and also what the
airport is able to put in.
For instance, Dulles Airport. To put the proper number of
Explosive Detective Systems (EDS) machines in there to screen
all the bags would totally fill their lobby. So what is a
practical way of doing this? We're trying to do the best job we
can at that.
Each one of the technologies has a deficiency. There hasn't
been a lot of money in the past years put into research in this
area.
I believe that with the entrepreneurs out there, and more
money going into research, that 2 or 3 years from now we will
have a much different technology in terms of size and in terms
of error free than we have now. So we are trying to watch all
of those as we move forward and mix and match them as best we
can.
For instance, EDS takes much less personnel than does the
trace detection. Each one of them has their deficiencies, and
we would be happy to talk to you in private about them.
EXPLOSIVES DETECTION SYSTEMS
Senator Shelby. Speaking of EDS, the Department of
Transportation Inspector General Ken Mead has indicated that
the airport site preparation cost required for installation of
EDS machines may be almost as costly as the machines
themselves. How does TSA propose to handle the construction
cost at airports associated with installation of EDS machines?
Of course, we have got a December 31 date.
Mr. Magaw. Right now the general plan, Senator, is to
install a machine in the lobby we will go up to $175,000, which
is more than what is needed to install it. If, let us say, we
are putting three machines into an airport and two of them cost
$125,000 each, we will provide the other $50,000 if the airport
wants to and it looks feasible, to put an in-line system behind
the counter or something like that, which costs a little more.
But we are going to try to stay at the $175,000 for each
machine, whether that involves moving walls or whatever it
might involve. So that is where we are working right now.
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
THREAT CONDITIONS
Senator Murray. Thank you, Senator Shelby.
A few weeks ago, Governor Ridge announced the establishment
of a Homeland Security Advisory System, setting up five threat
conditions. Each condition sets in motion protective measures
designed to reduce the vulnerability to security threats and
increase the response capability. Prior to Governor Ridge's
announcement, the railroad industry set up its own four-tier
alert plan.
Mr. Magaw and Mr. Rutter, how does the railroad industry's
plan fit or not fit with the threat plan designed by Homeland
Security?
Mr. Magaw. The Homeland Security program, as it was put
together, involved virtually all of the Federal agencies. It
was reached through a lot of discussion, primarily with the
intelligence units, because intelligence is where we hope to be
able to offset some of the weaknesses that we feel we have in
some of our transportation modes. I believe the Homeland
Security one will work very, very well as a national one across
the country. But maybe Administrator Rutter could comment on
the railroad one.
Mr. Rutter. One of the things, certainly, that we're
expecting to get out of our own internal third-party assessment
of the railroad risk analysis and vulnerability assessment is a
judgment on how we can take what has been identified as a plan
for the railroads to do, and mesh it with what Homeland
Security has pointed out.
It's my impression, although we'll certainly wait for that
product to be prepared, that our approach on rail security ties
into what Homeland Security has provided, because those varying
levels on the one hand depend on response, but the main thing
that it gives us is: how do we get the intelligence information
in the first place?
So we'll be looking to adjust those plans to take into
consideration what Homeland Security has already provided.
COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN AGENCIES
Senator Murray. I understand the decision to move from one
threat level to another is currently being communicated to the
various transportation industries through the Secretary's
Office of Intelligence and Security. And I have heard
complaints that the Office of Intelligence and Security is not
getting sufficient input from the FBI to determine whether the
heightened security levels are necessary. Is that true?
Mr. Magaw. Madam Chairman, that is not true. Our
intelligence unit not only interfaces very closely with the
FBI, but we have personnel there and they may from time to time
have personnel in our shops. What we want to do is to make sure
that in our structure we have an Associate Under Secretary
position for intelligence. It is one position below my
position. That is how important we believe it is.
We are searching now for a person who has international
intelligence experience that will be recognized as equal and
capable of being involved at every level, whether it be at the
White House, in Condoleezza Rice's intelligence part or whether
it is at the CIA or the FBI. Right now Transportation Security
Administration intelligence is involved in all of those
committees.
Senator Murray. Will TSA be taking this over at some point?
Mr. Magaw. TSA already has it. That was part of the
changeover from FAA, the intelligence part of it. It is now
mingled very closely with all the other intelligence units. So
our Associate Under Secretary for Intelligence and Security is
going to have intelligence for all of Transportation and will
be very closely intermingled with Homeland Defense, CIA, NSA,
FBI. So you will not find cracks there.
Senator Murray. Mr. Clapp, how you intend to make this
alert plan relevant and applicable to the independent owner-
operators with hazmat endorsements?
Mr. Clapp. Well, we look a whole lot more like the general
population. I don't have a direct line to every owner-operator,
but we do have existing lines of communication with the
industry, both at the State level and at the Federal level and
with all kinds of organizations that represent drivers, as well
as where drivers congregate in their companies.
Senator Murray. Yes, Captain.
TRANSPORTATION INFORMATION OPERATIONS CENTER (TIOC)
Mr. McMahon. Madam Chairman, I wanted to mention that one
of the efforts at the Department is to set up what will be
called a Transportation Information Operations Center, or TIOC.
And the purpose of the TIOC is to be able to deal with not only
security information, but other relevant information, to push
it out from the Department to the industry and from the
industry back to the Department and then to share information
with Federal agencies.
So in the case of motor carriers, through their
associations and perhaps even through the Teamsters Union or
something like that, our TIOC is envisioned to have the ability
to communicate a security alert, to an association, to some
group that can then disseminate it further. So we are working
on ways to effectively do that. And our interim TIOC will be on
line 24/7 April 1. And we're in the process of constructing a
full center which should be completed by the end of the summer.
SMART BORDER
Senator Murray. Mr. Magaw, in your formal opening
statement, you discussed the Administration's new Smart Border
declaration. That is an initiative designed to expedite the
travel of cargo across the United States-Canadian border. I am
concerned about cargo that is destined to the United States,
that will be sent to Canadian ports instead of United States
ports, because the security requirements will be more lax. Can
you assure this subcommittee that containers coming into the
United States via Canada and containers entering U.S. ports
will be subject to the exact same security requirements?
Mr. Magaw. I will just comment and then have Admiral Pluta
talk about it for a moment. Clearly any program that TSA puts
together will be put together with fairness to all. I
understand the importance of the Mexican border and the
Canadian border and the countries we deal with. But if the
admiral would discuss it.
Admiral Pluta. Yes, sir, I'd be happy to. Madam Chairman.
Senator Murray. Admiral.
Admiral Pluta. We have for a long time been collaborating
with Canada. And during last May's visit to the IMO, I signed a
MOU with both Canada and Mexico on port security. In
preparation for our IMO meeting, we had a video teleconference
with the Canadian delegation as well, to make sure that we were
in sync, so that we wouldn't have the disparity of having
people compete on the basis of security. And this is exactly
why we're going to IMO, to have an international standard so
that everybody has the same basic level of security in the
maritime mode, so that mode of international transportation
won't be something upon which somebody can compare security. It
will all be the same. That's the approach that we're talking,
Madam Chairman.
Senator Murray. Will containers entering U.S. ports be more
likely to be inspected by the Customs Service or Coast Guard
than containers coming through Canada, entering through Canada?
Admiral Pluta. I'm sorry. I didn't catch your question,
Madam Chairman.
CONTAINER INSPECTION
Senator Murray. Will containers that are coming into U.S.
ports be more likely to be inspected than containers coming
across the Canadian border?
Admiral Pluta. In the scenario that we're trying to work
with Canada, we would both subject containers to the same level
of inspection. In fact, Madam Chairman, there was a DOT
delegation that Admiral Loy was a member of that set up a 20-
point program of cooperation with interborder type issues,
security issues, with Canada. And I think the objective of this
program is to avoid exactly what you're talking about, Madam
Chairman.
Senator Murray. Will the ratio of U.S. Customs officers to
containers be the same for U.S. ports and Canadian ports?
Admiral Pluta. I can't answer that question, Madam
Chairman, for Customs. Maybe Mr. Magaw could help me out here.
Mr. Magaw. No. I think we'd have to ask Customs that
question.
[The information follows:]
The U.S. Customs Service anticipates that the ratio of inspectors
to containers in Canadian ports will be higher than the ratio of
inspectors to containers in U.S. Ports. In Canada, Canada Customs and
U.S. Customs rely upon a manual review of paper manifests. This is the
result of several factors including the fact that the percentage of
carriers that transmit manifests electronically is lower in Canada than
in the U.S. Since the U.S. system is highly automated, U.S. Customs
expects that fewer inspectors will be needed in U.S. ports.
The number of inspectors conducting targeting operations in the
U.S. and Canada currently differs. At this point, there is one Canadian
Customs inspector located in Tacoma/Seattle, Washington and one in
Newark, New Jersey. U.S. Customs has staffed both Montreal and
Vancouver with three inspectors, while Halifax is staffed with two
inspectors. These staffing levels may change as the program evolves.
CONTAINER SECURITY
Senator Murray. Captain.
Mr. McMahon. Madam Chairman, just one point on that, and I
think it was brought up earlier as far as container security.
The best way we can ensure container security, whether a
container is coming from Canada, Mexico, or through our ocean
ports, is information and to know what, in fact, is in that
container and who shipped it. And that knowledge, that feeling
of security, is not contingent on whether it's coming into a
U.S. port or a Canadian port. We're just as interested in
transhipped containers coming through Canada, and perhaps in
some cases more so, for these same reasons.
So that's one of the efforts of our container working
group, working with Customs and other agencies, to ensure that
information is as accurate as possible.
Senator Murray. Admiral.
Admiral Pluta. Madam Chairman, I was just informed that
Canadians and the U.S. Customs Service have an exchange
program. We have just exchanged three customs officers from the
United States to work in Canada as well as those coming over
here in an exchange program, to try to sort out those things
and make sure that we're dealing with the cargo issues in the
same manner.
Senator Murray. Very good.
Admiral Pluta. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
ADVANCED NOTICE OF ARRIVAL REQUIREMENTS
Senator Murray. Admiral Pluta, the Coast Guard recently
changed the advance notice of arrival requirements from a 24-
hour advance notice of arrival to a 96-hour time period. At the
same time, you are requiring ships to send a list of all their
crew members so they can be checked against national security
screening lists. That requires the screening of over 9,000
names a day.
Earlier this week it was reported that the screening
process is so cumbersome that oftentimes the ships have come
and gone before the screening confirmations have gotten back to
the Coast Guard. It was also reported that there is very little
the Coast Guard can do when they are given fictitious names of
crew members.
Admiral, why does it take so long for the Coast Guard to
screen these names?
Admiral Pluta. Madam Chairman, first please let me say that
we do look at the crew members and we focus on high interest
vessels first and other vessels later. The reason that it's
taking so long is because we don't have that information
submitted to us electronically. In order for us to get this
rulemaking on the street expeditiously, we were limited by
procedure to not making radical changes. And making a change
from a paper submission to an electronic submission was more
than we were permitted to do. So we're including that
electronic submission in our final rule, and we're working with
the U.S. Customs Service and their APIS System, the Automatic
Personnel Identification System, to use their system to
electronically vet people.
Senator Murray. When can we expect that to happen?
Admiral Pluta. In June the regulation can become final, and
I can't answer beyond that, Madam Chairman.
Senator Murray. Okay.
Admiral Pluta. But we are working with the industry. In
fact, we already have a working agreement with the
International Council of Cruise Lines, who voluntarily use the
APIS System for the most part to get people to submit
electronically. And there seems to be a very warm reception to
that whole idea. I think we're going to get voluntary
compliance before the Administrative Procedures Act.
Senator Murray. What do you plan to do about fictitious
names?
Admiral Pluta. The Credentialing Direct Action Group and
the IMO initiative to get background checks for seafarers and
identification for seafarers is going to resolve this problem
hopefully over time. We can't deal with fictitious information
right now. We have to accept it at face value. But the
initiative that we went forward with at the IMO was to
establish a central identification database for all mariners
from all countries.
The issue of background checks for mariners is very
contentious at the IMO. But we are working between the IMO and
the International Labor Organization to get a standard for all
seafarers to be identifiable before they come into our country.
And we are working with INS, who is also a member of our
delegation, to make sure that that identification would be
equivalent to a passport kind of identification level, so that
we would be more conscious of everybody who is coming our way,
Madam Chairman.
RISK OF FOREIGN VESSELS ENTERING THE UNITED STATES
Senator Murray. Admiral, with the vast majority of vessels
entering the United States being foreign flagged and operated
by foreign crews, it is only natural that you have looked for
international support to ensure that these vessels do not
present an unusual risk to our national security. One goal you
announced in this area is to accelerate the requirement for
every ship to have an automated information system or a
transponder by 2004. Without those transponders, as the case is
today, we effectively do not know what ships are in our waters.
How likely is it that you will achieve unanimous consensus for
this requirement at the International Maritime Organization
meeting in December of this year?
Admiral Pluta. Madam Chairman, I'll be better able to
answer that question in May, but I feel very optimistic about
that. We suggested to the IMO that it accelerate this
requirement. It's an existing requirement that had a
preexisting time frame that ran through 2008. And we suggested
that they accelerate it through 2004. After a lot of
discussion, the language that came out of the inter-sessional
work group was that this equipment would be installed at the
first special survey after the first of July of 2004, but no
later than December 31, 2004. And that seemed to be the
consensus opinion, although there were several countries that
offered other alternatives that would string it out for some
classes of vessels a little bit further.
Senator Murray. You are hoping to get International
Support. But if you do not get international support to
accelerate this at your next meeting, do you think it is time
we put in place a requirement as a port state and mandate that
any ship that enters our water has a transponder, so we at
least know what ships are operating in our waters?
Admiral Pluta. Madam Chairman, I think if we don't succeed
at the IMO in getting that time frame, then that's our only
alternative.
PORT OF ORIGIN CONTAINER EXAMINATION PROGRAM
Senator Murray. Admiral, a second goal of your
international outreach included seeking support for a port of
origin container examination program, where containers would be
inspected at their point of origin, so that when they finally
arrive here in the United States we will have some level of
comfort that the contents of the container are as they were
advertised on their cargo manifest. In reality, how smart do
you really think it would be for us to rely on security
screening procedures that are put in place by countries like
Malaysia or Indonesia or the Philippines?
Admiral Pluta. Madam Chairman, if we establish an
international standard, and if we have an auditing system of
trusted agents that can be vetted to vet the cargo themselves,
if we have a good working relationship between the IMO, the
World Customs Organization, our own Customs Service and our
larger bilateral partners, you have to trust to a degree, but
you have to check as well. And I think that has to be part of
it. But we're building those blocks at the IMO from the ground
up. Establish what is the minimum standard, first, and then we
can hold people to it through port state control provisions and
check with either the Customs Service or other overseas trusted
agents. In that case, I would be willing to trust what's coming
in our direction, Madam Chairman.
Senator Murray. In a lot of the Asian ports there are
independent barge operators that transfer as few as four
containers at a time. How do we ensure the security of
operations with facilities like that?
Admiral Pluta. Madam Chairman, we have to apply the same
standard regardless of the volume. I think it's up to the
Administration in the case of Singapore, China, or Hong Kong to
make sure that the same standard is applied to all operators.
And that would be a condition of a container being permitted to
be loaded on a ship bound for the United States, Madam
Chairman.
NATURAL GAS PIPELINES
Senator Murray. Thank you very much.
Ms. Engleman, let me go back to you. Earlier this year your
agency put out a proposed rule which would prevent natural gas
pipelines from being installed near hospitals, schools, daycare
facilities, and other facilities having persons who are
disabled. The natural gas industry has been lobbying against
that proposed rule. And given the security threat proposed by
natural gas pipelines, do you think it is responsible for the
gas industry to try and weaken that proposal?
Ms. Engleman. I believe that we have to look at all aspects
of security, as well as safety, when we look at the natural gas
rule. As you are aware, that is step one of our integrity
management program for gas. We will soon follow the notice of
proposed rulemaking with the actual program. And that program
will incorporate the elements of locations. It will go beyond
just population and concerns for the high----
Senator Murray. Will RSPA weaken its proposal in that area?
Ms. Engleman. We're in the rulemaking process now, ma'am.
We're looking at all aspects of the comments that are coming
back from industry. That's part of the general procedure.
However, we do continue to have a focus on safety and security
as our primary decision maker.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT
Senator Murray. Mr. Magaw, the issue of the Administrative
Procedures Act has come up several times this morning. Do you
believe that we should waive the Administrative Procedures Act
in the case of transportation security regulations?
Mr. Magaw. Well, certainly if we have particular
circumstances, events, or discoveries as we move forward that
need immediate action, I would think that we ought to have that
authority, but we ought to make sure that we use it very
cautiously.
Senator Murray. Okay.
Mr. Magaw. Some of those authorities are in the new
Aviation Transportation Securities Act. I don't intend to use
them unless I have to use them, but the ones that are there,
allow me to make airline industry regulations, but it has to be
very carefully monitored by Congress so that it is not misused.
I guarantee we will not misuse it.
Senator Murray. What about for other modes?
Mr. Magaw. I would think it would be valuable for other
modes with close observation of Congress.
AVIATION SECURITY
Senator Murray. Let me move on. Mr. Magaw, while this
hearing really is about cargo security, I did want to take a
minute to ask you a couple of questions about aviation
security. We are told that we may be receiving the
Administration's supplemental funding request for the current
year perhaps even today. Do you expect that the amount of
funding requested for your agency in the supplemental will be
sufficient to enable you to fully meet your deadlines for
federalizing the screening functions and testing all checked
bags for explosives by the end of this year?
Mr. Magaw. The figure that we are working with now, which
we would hope the President will authorize, would allow us to
do what you just said, meet the requirements of the baggage and
the screening and the training and the hiring of the screeners.
Senator Murray. You are hoping?
Mr. Magaw. No. I believe that the amount that's in there
now is $4.3 billion. If that comes forward to you at $4.3
billion, we will be able to meet the requirements with that.
Senator Murray. Without causing undue delay for passengers?
Mr. Magaw. Without causing undue delay for passengers. It
will not allow us to do some of the perimeter airport security
that we had planned. It will not allow us to do as much in
cargo as we planned. But it will allow us to get started in the
cargo area. It will allow us to continue moving forward in
2003.
Senator Murray. So I can assume that it will not have
enough to cover a lot of the issues that we have discussed this
morning?
Mr. Magaw. No. It will have money in there for most of
those issues. In fact, it has money in there for 200 personnel
to hire as cargo inspectors and cargo supervisors. So it will
get us started in that area.
EXPLOSIVE DETECTION SYSTEMS
Senator Murray. By the end of this year you are required to
have new explosive detection systems installed in every airport
across the country for the purpose of screening all of our
checked baggage. This is a huge undertaking that is going to
take a lot of cooperation between your agency and all the
airports. I have had a number of airports talking to me in the
last few weeks, who really feel that they are being kept in the
dark by the agency and want to know what is going to happen to
their facilities within the next few months. Do you think your
staff at the TSA knows how and where best to install explosives
systems, more than the airports?
Mr. Magaw. Oh, absolutely not. I can understand, Madam
Chairman, their concern. Two months ago, this organization was
a white piece of paper and me. We now have Federal personnel in
each of the airports, but they are not the new Federal security
directors. I can understand that the managers of airports, the
operators of airports, and the airlines themselves, are
concerned. The message that we want to send is that every
airport is different. You are the masters of your airport. We
are going to come in there and coordinate with you. The only
thing that they would have problems with us is if they want to
build let us say, lanes to bring groups through that are more
than what they would need for that airport.
We have a pilot program right now at Baltimore-Washington
International. Those lines went from an hour and a half to 18
minutes. The other day they were 12 minutes. Now that was by
building one more lane, but putting all the kinds of practices
in place that we could figure out with the people at the
airport. It was all done with the leadership at the airport.
For instance, simple things like instead of taking all of
your things out of your pocket and putting it in the plastic
container as you stand there at the x-ray machines at the same
time you are trying to put your carry-on baggage through, it is
done back in the line. So when you walk up there, there is no
dropping of things. You already had a chance to check, so that
there are less delays because you put more in that box as you
come up through there, because you think about it. Therefore
you don't trip the machine as often. There is not that dropping
and picking up and mad scramble.
The other thing is in terms of wanding. If you trip the
machine, you step off to the side where you are wanded, and
able to watch your own valuables, so that there are not
complaints of missing it. The wanding, then, takes place as the
machine is still functioning, bringing passengers through.
So that blueprint, although it can't fit exactly in every
airport, the lessons learned there will fit. We are going to
give those lessons learned to the airports. But the airport
people are sitting there, knowing all this is coming, and
asking ``how does it affect me?'' What I am trying to do is
talk to each one of them. We have a conference call every two
weeks to talk about their particular concerns. They have places
to call each day to try to work their concerns out. But once we
get those Federal security directors at each airport, those
concerns will go away.
HIRING OF FEDERAL SECURITY MANAGERS
Senator Murray. You have only hired a handful of these
Federal security managers. When do you expect to have those in
place?
Mr. Magaw. The eight that we already have hired are
developing the plans and being trained right now. There is
another group of ten that the Secretary has approved. There is
another group of 15 or 20 that the Secretary will approve in
the next few days. After that, we are going to be rolling them
out at about 25 to 30 a week. And so it will take us through
the summer.
Senator Murray. It will take us through the summer?
Mr. Magaw. I believe before they are at all the airports.
Now at the 81 airports, they will probably be there within the
next 6 weeks. But in terms of all 429, it will take us probably
through the summer. There is Federal presence on board now. The
interim Federal security director is at every airport.
The problem they have is that they were pulled from their
assignments and put out there. We are trying to make sure we
give them directions as we go along, so that they will be
working with the airport people, taking their ideas, putting
the plans together as they see it. The airports really have to
make the plan. All we are going to do is just say, ``yes, it
makes sense,'' and ``let's do it.''
Senator Murray. I know you are a proud veteran of the
Secret Service, and I have a lot of respect for the work of the
Secret Service, but I wonder why so many of your new appointees
at TSA come from the Secret Service. How many of your new
senior managers are veterans of the Secret Service?
Mr. Magaw. Of the eight airport directors that were just
selected, four of them have a Secret Service background. One
has ATF background also. On my staff--this is going to be an
estimate, because I can't run all of them through my head right
now--we have about 35 that we have hired at headquarters.
Probably 8 or 10 of those have a Secret Service background.
Senator Murray. Are you making a sufficient effort to bring
in transportation specialists at the staff?
Mr. Magaw. Yes, we are. We want to have a balance between
those who have law enforcement background and those who have
industry background. So as we have been talking with the modal
administrators, and as we are talking to the Secretary in
developing our staff, we want to make sure that in the land
travel area, we have people from the trucking industry. In
fact, there's a woman here today that has 40 years' experience
in airline experience, from running----
Senator Murray. Do you have anybody who is a security
director for a transportation company on staff?
Mr. Magaw. Yes. He's coming on board, in fact, next week.
He also has a law enforcement background, but he has been in
the trucking business 4 years now. As Mr. Clapp and I were
talking during the break, we need to find somebody who has a
history in liquid transportation. So we are balancing it. While
I want to make sure that we are looking at security issues, I
want to make sure that we have a balance, both in the airports
and in the headquarters staff.
EXPLOSIVES DETECTION SYSTEMS
Senator Murray. I want to ask you about the procurement of
explosives detection systems. I know Senator Shelby asked you a
bit too, but I am getting pretty worried. We have 9 months and
9 days left to install a sufficient number of explosive
detection systems around the country to meet the deadline of
screening all checked baggage. As I understand it, you have
only contracted for a few hundred new explosive systems. I am
told there will be several thousand that will be needed. Do you
still think it is possible to meet this deadline?
Mr. Magaw. Not only possible, but I feel more comfortable
about it than I did, 3 or 4 weeks ago. Let me tell you why.
The problem is not putting the machine together, because it
is basically bending steel. The problem is making sure that you
get all the components, everything from the CAT scan to those
kinds of things. Over 300 of those orders have gone out.
There are other manufacturers stepping up now that are
saying, ``We can produce some of those parts that make it.''
There also are a number of companies stepping up, saying,
``If we have the components, we can turn these machines out.''
The problem we wanted to make sure that we dealt fairly
with was with the companies that are already in the market and
certified, that their rights were not violated. They have
signed agreements that allow us now to have a major company set
up an entire warehouse to just run these machines very quickly
through as the component parts come in. So two companies that
are certified are going to be making the maximum number that
they can make. They are both gearing up to make more than what
they thought they could. The shortfall will come from the big
manufacturing unit. I am convinced we will reach that goal.
Senator Murray. Do you believe will we have those machines
installed at all the airports by the end of the year, or are we
going to be looking at alternative means to do this?
Mr. Magaw. If you have an airport that can only handle so
many of the EDS machines and there is no way to reconstruct
that in time to put all EDS machines in there, then the
alternative means that we would be looking at is the ETD
machine; that is the swipe type machine. Much smaller, but it
takes more people to do it.
So what we are trying to do is look at each airport, what
is feasible at each airport, and then what plan do we go about
it. But by the deadline, we will be examining baggage through
one of those two technical systems, or both of them in tandem.
CUSTOMER SERVICE
Senator Murray. Mr. Magaw, you have spoken in the past
regarding the importance of good customer service when it comes
to the way the TSA treats air passengers. Secretary Mineta has
publicly called for a wait time of no more than 10 minutes for
passengers to get through the screening process. Has the TSA
taken Secretary Mineta's 10-minute standard as a hard and fast
customer service standard for the future?
Mr. Magaw. We have taken that as a goal. We are working for
that at every airport. Some of those airports, in order to do
that, will take some restructuring of exit and entry lanes. So
it may take us a while to get there. But that is our goal. In
fact, our vision statement, our mission statement, and our
values list all the kind of things that you are talking about
in terms of not only top-flight security, but quality customer
service. That is in our training of our new first screeners
being trained this week and next. The first group is coming
through. And that's an essential part of the training. First
class security, but also first class customer courtesy and
respect and service.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Murray. Well, thank you very much to all of our
witnesses today for taking time on this important hearing. This
subcommittee will now stand recessed until Thursday, April 4,
when the subcommittee will take testimony on port security in
Washington State.
[Whereupon, at 11:37 a.m., Thursday, March 21, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2003
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2002
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:35 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Patty Murray (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Murray, Kohl, Durbin, Shelby, Bennett,
Campbell, and Stevens.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
STATEMENT OF HON. JANE F. GARVEY, ADMINISTRATOR
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATTY MURRAY
Senator Murray. The subcommittee will come to order.
Already this year, this subcommittee has had three hearings
on the topic of transportation and security. It was my hope
that our hearing today could focus solely on the issues of
aviation safety and capacity. Those were the two critical
aviation issues this subcommittee was most focused on prior to
September 11. And now, even with all the concerns we face in
the area of aviation security, I still believe that we must pay
more attention to them.
Before September 11, air traffic was growing at a rapid
rate, as was our economy. We were celebrating an historically
long period without a major domestic airline disaster, even
while air traffic was reaching historic highs. The events of
September 11 did much to depress air traffic, and then on
November 12, American Airlines flight 587 plunged into Rockaway
Beach, Queens, the result of a clear safety failure.
Today, we are starting to see air traffic return in some
markets to pre-September 11 levels. Our aviation industry and
our national commercial aviation enterprise is trying to get
back to normal, even as we all worry that the next terrorist
attack may be right around the corner.
We are beginning to see the fruits of certain FAA
investments to improve the efficiency of our aviation system.
We have finally begun installing ground proximity radars to
prevent runway incursions, and I was pleased to host our
witness, Administrator Garvey, in Seattle 2 weeks ago for such
an event.
We have installed new technologies in some of our busiest
control towers to keep airplanes moving during the summer storm
season. At the same time, we continue to see either performance
or cost problems with some of the most important FAA
procurements on the horizon: performance problems with the new
ASR-11 radars, which are expected to replace the aging analog
radars at airports; cost overruns associated with the STARS
program, which will provide new, desperately needed displays
and computer equipment for air traffic controllers; and
diminishing expectations of what the WAAS program can provide,
a program designed to move the aviation industry into the era
of satellite navigation.
While it would be valuable and instructive to focus on just
these issues alone, I am finding that, as I wade into the
details of the Administration's aviation budget, it is
impossible to ignore the issues surrounding the financing of
aviation security. Notwithstanding the fact that this
subcommittee fully funded the FAA's Operations budget request
last year and granted several hundred million dollars more for
emerging security needs, the FAA is currently contemplating a
number of austerity measures for the current year due to the
lack of available funds. These austerity measures include a
hiring freeze on all air traffic employees that are not air
traffic controllers or maintenance technicians, delaying the
hiring of new air traffic controllers, reducing the maintenance
on redundant safety systems, and reducing training for air
traffic controllers.
On top of those challenges, the FAA has had to urgently
invest $100 million in order to better protect its own air
traffic control facilities against a potential terrorist
threat. At least in this case, the Administration has asked us
to provide the FAA with an extra $100 million, but it has done
so in a most misguided manner. Rather than ask for an emergency
appropriation similar to the $4.4 billion in additional funding
that has been requested for the Transportation Security
Administration, the Administration is asking that this $100
million be diverted from funds already appropriated for capital
investments in the FAA's Facilities and Equipment program, and
the Airport Improvement Program. This proposal comes at a time
when the FAA is already required to divert funds away from its
capital needs.
In order to continue the operations of the Essential Air
Service (AES) Program, Administrator Garvey must divert $50
million from existing capital programs. There is also roughly
$25 million that needs to be rescinded as a result of
Congressional action. And finally, there is an additional $38
million that must be found to keep the STARS program on
schedule, because of cost overruns that have burdened that
program.
So, I do not see the wisdom in cutting capital investments
further to pay for the protection of FAA facilities. We should
appropriate these emergency security funds in the same way that
we fund the urgent needs of the Transportation Security
Administration.
As I review the Administration's plans to implement the
Transportation Security Act, it is clear that there will be a
continuing tension between the needs for safety and the need
for security. The Transportation Security Act allows funds
appropriated to the Airport Improvement Program (AIP), our
priority grant program for airport safety and capacity
enhancements, to be used for security-related expenditures for
2002 only.
The hope, at the time the Security Act was written, was to
help the airports cover a portion of their costs associated
with hiring additional law enforcement personnel and other
security expenditures. I am now concerned by indications that
the Administration is looking to use the entire AIP program,
all $3.3 billion, as a funding source for the installation of
new explosive detection systems. While I support the investment
in security, I do not think it is wise to suspend an entire
year of Federal investment in projects designed to help our
industry grow and ensure the safety of the flying public.
While the Administration's supplemental budget request for
an additional $4.4 billion for the TSA was submitted to the
Congress almost a month ago, they still have been unwilling to
brief this subcommittee on the details of their plans to
purchase and install explosive detection machines. Those
machines will be needed to comply with the requirement to
screen all checked bags by the end of this year.
But the Nation's airports, like this subcommittee, cannot
get any straight answers out of the Administration as to how
this requirement is going to be met. Clearly, the
Administration is struggling internally to determine how or
whether it will implement the letter of the Security Act, the
spirit of the Security Act, or its own unique interpretation of
the Security Act.
I, for one, do not believe that we can afford to take a
full year hiatus from investing in critical safety and capacity
projects at our Nation's airports. We should not divert every
dollar of airport grant funding for security expenditures. If
we allow this to happen, we will once again find ourselves
struggling to handle a growing number of delays and congestion
at our Nation's airports. Those security expenditures need to
be paid for and should not be done at the cost of safety and
capacity projects. With that, I recognize the subcommittee's
ranking member, Senator Shelby.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Now that responsibility for the security of the aviation
system has shifted to the Transportation Security
Administration, the FAA must focus on being prepared for the
return in demand for air travel.
The current decline in air traffic presents the FAA with an
opportunity, I believe, to get ahead of future demand by
developing a strategic plan for addressing capacity constraints
and modifying the modernization effort to accelerate
development of the acquisition programs with the greatest
potential.
At the same time, we must remain ever mindful of the need
to constrain operational costs and enhance the efficiency of
air traffic services delivery. Ultimately, our efficiency in
modernizing the National Airspace System, and providing air
traffic control services, translates into making air travel
more affordable for all Americans and making our economy that
much more competitive. Clearly, if the FAA continues along its
present, inefficient course, when the traffic returns, so will
the delays.
But, Madam Chairman, it is difficult and unwise to discuss
aviation safety or capacity issues without addressing aviation
security. While I appreciate the difficulty of creating and
staffing a new agency from scratch, there is no excuse for
making decisions from behind a closed door or for perceiving
that the formulation and disposition of security-related
matters are exempt from accountability.
Time and time again, information from TSA has not been
forthcoming and affected stakeholders have not had
opportunities to present their cases before decisions are made.
One of the most immediate issues involves the funding
source to pay for the implementation of new security
requirements, including in particular the installation of the
explosive detection systems. I have been told that until this
and other security-related costs can be determined, the FAA
will not issue any AIP grants and is holding the funds in
abeyance. That is like saying that we are not going to pay for
cholesterol-reducing drugs because we are saving all of our
money for open-heart surgery.
I believe that the Department must pursue the critical
security improvements and requirements, while keeping important
capacity and safety projects on track. The construction season
in some States will begin soon, and unless the funding
suspension is lifted, several multi-year projects will be in
jeopardy.
The FAA's acquisition programs, on the other hand, seem to
be continuing virtually unaffected by the terrorist attacks of
September 11. This is short-sighted, I believe. Instead of
ignoring changing circumstances, even those brought about by
tragedy, the FAA must, I believe, revalidate the need for
various acquisition programs within the context of new security
procedures and security requirements.
This is a call to look at programs like WAAS to confirm
that the programmatic solutions the FAA is pursuing are still
the right solutions. We really, really should be constantly
revalidating our modernization program and asking the FAA and
industry if there are better, safer, and more efficient ways of
meeting our modernization and security goals.
I also continue to be concerned, Madam Chairman, that cost
increases, schedule delays, and reduced capabilities are the
norm with FAA's acquisition programs, not the exception.
Furthermore, I am concerned that the FAA is abusing its
procurement flexibility.
At my request, the Inspector General conducted a rigorous
analysis of competition in air traffic control contracts, and
determined that the FAA awarded six of nine large contracts,
valued at more than $1.25 billion, on a non-competitive basis.
The intent of procurement flexibility was to overcome the
barriers that can delay an acquisition program from benefitting
the flying public and save taxpayer money along the way.
Instead, it appears that the flexibility is being used for
convenience of program managers. Madam Chairman, procurement
flexibility was granted in order to accelerate modernization,
not to trample on the legitimate expectations of fairness
engendered by competition. When the FAA does just that, and
then does not realize any efficiency in program delivery or
cost savings, we are getting the worst of all worlds.
Madam Chairman, fiscal year 2003 will be, in many ways, a
pivotal year for the FAA. The AIR-21 authorization act expires,
as does the labor agreement with the air traffic controllers
union. In anticipation of the reauthorization process, it is my
hope that the supporters of fire walls, whether in the Congress
or from groups that claim to benefit by them, will make an
honest determination of their value and understand their
limitations.
As I have stated before, special budgetary protection
effectively establishes a funding ceiling, not just a funding
floor, and minimizes our ability to make adjustments due to
changing circumstances, such as new security requirements.
Furthermore, programs with special budgetary protection become
a source for funding noncapital priorities, and that is why the
funding for the Essential Air Service Program is being
requested in AIP, which is one of the so-called protected
accounts.
Finally, I want to join you, Madam Chairman, in commending
FAA Administrator Jane Garvey for her dedication and her
leadership over the past 5 years. While the job certainly has
its rewards, it certainly has its challenges, and perhaps more
challenges than rewards.
As this may be your last appearance as FAA Administrator
before this subcommittee, Madam Administrator, I would like to
get your candid advice for your successor, a sense of what you
think you did right, a sense of what things you might have done
differently. Perhaps you could make some comments along those
lines in your opening remarks.
Madam Administrator, I believe your sense of service was
evident by your decision to continue in your position at the
FAA through the end of the term, despite the change of
administrations.
I believe it was just as important that you remained in
your position to provide stability to an organization that was
rocked by the terrorist attacks of September 11. The FAA is one
of those places in government where leadership at the top,
sustained over a period of time, is necessary before real
change can be implemented.
You have provided that leadership and we are seeing some
progress now because of some of your initiatives, including
Free Flight, Safe Flight, and capacity benchmarks. I commend
you for that. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Richard C. Shelby
U.S. Senator Richard C. Shelby (R-AL), Ranking Member of the Senate
Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, today commented on aviation
safety and capacity issues:
Now that responsibility for the security of the aviation system has
shifted to the Transportation Security Administration, the FAA must
focus on being prepared for the return in demand for air travel.
The current decline in air traffic presents the FAA with an
opportunity to get ahead of future demand by developing a strategic
plan for addressing capacity constraints and modifying the
modernization effort to accelerate development of the acquisition
programs with the greatest potential.
At the same time, we must remain ever mindful of the need to
constrain operational costs and enhance the efficiency of air traffic
services delivery. Ultimately, our efficiency in modernizing the
National Airspace System and providing air traffic control services
translates into making air travel more affordable for all Americans and
making our economy that much more competitive.
Clearly, if the FAA continues along its present, inefficient
course, when the traffic returns, so will delays.
But, it is difficult and unwise to discuss aviation safety or
capacity issues without addressing aviation security. While I
appreciate the difficulty of creating and staffing a new agency from
scratch, that is no excuse for making decisions from behind a closed
door or for perceiving that the formulation and disposition of
security-related matters are exempt from accountability.
Time and time again, information from TSA has not been forthcoming
and affected stakeholders have not had opportunities to present their
cases before decisions are made.
One of the most immediate issues involves the funding source to pay
for the implementation of new security requirements, including in
particular the installation of the explosive detection systems. I have
been told that until this and other security-related costs can be
determined, the FAA will not issue any AIP grants and is holding the
funds in abeyance. That's like saying we're not going to pay for
cholesterol reducing drugs because we're saving all our money for open-
heart surgery.
I believe that the Department must pursue the critical security
improvements and requirements while keeping important capacity and
safety projects on track. The construction season in some states will
begin soon and unless the funding suspension is lifted, several multi-
year projects will be in jeopardy.
The FAA's acquisition programs, on the other hand, seem to be
continuing virtually unaffected by the terrorist attacks of September
11. This is short-sighted. Instead of ignoring changing circumstances,
even those brought about by tragedy, the FAA must revalidate the need
for various acquisition programs within the context of new security
procedures and security requirements.
This is a call to look at programs like WAAS to confirm that the
programmatic solutions the FAA is pursuing are still the right
solutions. We really should be constantly revalidating our
modernization program and asking the FAA and industry if there are
better, safer, and more cost efficient ways of meeting our
modernization and security goals.
I also continue to be concerned that cost increases, schedule
delays, and reduced capabilities are the norm with FAA's acquisition
programs, not the exception. Furthermore, I am concerned that the FAA
is abusing its procurement flexibility.
At my request, the Inspector General conducted a rigorous analysis
of competition in air traffic control contracts, and determined that
the FAA awarded six of nine large contracts, valued at more than $1.25
billion, on a non-competitive basis.
The intent of procurement flexibility was to overcome the barriers
that can delay an acquisition program from benefitting the flying
public and save taxpayer money along the way; instead, it appears that
the flexibility is being used for the convenience of program managers.
Procurement flexibility was granted in order to accelerate
modernization, not to trample on the legitimate expectations of
fairness engendered by competition. When the FAA does just that and
then doesn't realize any efficiency in program delivery or cost
savings, we are getting the worst of all worlds.
Fiscal year 2003 will be in many ways a pivotal year for the FAA.
The AIR-21 authorization act expires, as does the labor agreement with
the air traffic controllers union. In anticipation of the
reauthorization process, it is my hope that the supporters of
firewalls--whether in the Congress or from groups that claim to benefit
by them--will make an honest determination of their value and
understand their limitations.
As I have stated before, special budgetary protection effectively
establishes a funding ceiling, not just a funding floor, and minimizes
our ability to make adjustments due to changing circumstances, such as
new security requirements.
Furthermore, programs with special budgetary protection become a
source for funding non-capital priorities, and that is why the funding
for the Essential Air Service program is being requested in AIP, which
is one of the so called protected accounts.
Finally, I want to join Chairman Murray in commending FAA
Administrator Jane Garvey for her dedication and leadership over the
past five years. While the job certainly has its rewards, it certainly
has its challenges--and perhaps more challenges than rewards.
As this may be your last appearance as FAA Administrator before
this subcommittee, Madam Administrator, I would like to get your candid
advice for your successor, a sense of what you think you did right, and
a sense of what things you might have done differently. Perhaps you
could make some comments along those lines during your opening remarks.
I believe your sense of service was evident by your decision to
continue in your position at the FAA through the end of the term,
despite the change of administrations.
I believe it was just as important that you remained in your
position to provide stability to an organization that was rocked by the
terrorist attacks of September 11. The FAA is one of those places in
government where leadership at the top sustained over a period of time
is necessary before real change can be implemented.
You have provided that leadership and we are seeing some progress
now because of some of your initiatives, including Free Flight, Safe
Flight, and capacity benchmarks.
Senator Murray. Senator Campbell.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL
Senator Campbell. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I would like to join my colleagues, Jane, in congratulating
you on 5 years at the head of the FAA. Who could have ever
anticipated the tragedy that we all faced after 9/11?
I believe all three of us came on this committee about the
same time in the last few years. Mostly what this committee did
was listen to passenger complaints, on flight delays,
cancellations, things of that nature, and the lack of available
information pertaining to those problems.
Certainly, that has all changed. And while those problems
may continue, our focus certainly has switched to security
procedures. And the tragic events of 9/11 were, in my view,
were terrible and it forced us to put some things in place that
I am not sure that we have yet found the balance between common
sense and necessity to protect the public.
Before 9/11, 4-inch knives were allowed on planes and
security screening was pretty lax, untrained personnel,
sometimes people could not speak English, security features on
the planes were weak. The cockpit doors, for example, were
easily breached. And I realize that many steps have been taken
to correct that, because I fly home every weekend, as Senator
Murray does too.
Our country's economy is dependent on travel and the
mobility of commerce. Additionally, the people of the United
States deserve to move about in a safe manner. So sky marshals,
improvement in selection and training of airport employees, and
improvement in security procedures, all of those things, I
think, are a terrific step.
I guess my big problem is that there is such inconsistency
out there still at the airports. Some airports I go through,
they make me take my shoes off; others, they do not. It seems
to me they ought to have some kind of a mechanism so that if I
wear Western boots and if there is something in there that
rings, they ought to all know it, not just some of them. But I
think the last couple of weeks has really brought into focus
some of the inconsistencies.
This little thing here, you know, you have seen it. It is a
fingernail clipper. I had two of them in my pocket when I came
through Dulles on the way to Denver last week; two of these
little things. And they made me take them out, everything metal
you take out. I took them out. And this person that was doing
the inspecting looked at this and he said, ``Open that up.''
And so I did. And you can see, it is a little file, about an
inch long. There very common. You can buy them in any
drugstore.
And this man said, ``You cannot get on there with that.''
And I said, ``Well, break it off.'' And he said, ``Well, I
cannot do that. You will have to break it off yourself.'' I
said, ``Okay.'' So I broke the thing off.
And he said, ``Okay. That is fine. Now, you can take it on
there.'' He did not say a thing about the other one. So I got
on with one with a broken little file, and one without a broken
little file. When I came back from Colorado this way this year,
I forgot the one with the broken file, and I just happened to
have the one in my pocket with the file, and nobody said
anything.
While I was on the plane, Madam Chairman, I was doing some
writing of notes, and I dropped my pen, this pen. And while I
was fumbling around, I could not see where it fell under the
seat, and I was groping for the thing. I stuck it in my hand,
which leads to another interesting question. I mean, holy
smoke, could that be a weapon if somebody was inclined to?
Maybe it could.
But I guess I bring these simple little case studies to
your attention, because there does not seem to be consistency
yet about what we can take on, what we cannot, and if it is
going to be the same in all airports. And you might try to
address that.
I have a couple of questions I would like to ask the
Administrator as we get along.
Thank you.
Senator Murray. Senator Reid has submitted a statement and
asked that it be printed in the record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Harry Reid
Madam Chairman, let me begin by saying how pleased and honored I am
to serve on this prestigious committee entrusted with appropriations to
meet the nation's transportation needs.
Madam Chairman, it may be prudent to request the DOTIG to return to
the Subcommittee and update his latest findings on STARS. Given his
concerns about the risk in the schedule and costs requires we obtain
more information before committing scarce 2003 funding to continue what
appears to be a terribly troubled program. Now is the time to address
these issues before our Air Traffic Control system becomes completely
outdated and unsafe.
Mrs. Garvey, the STARS program is critical to the FAA's ongoing
efforts to modernize the air traffic control system. Yet as I
understand it, STARS is now $700 million over budget, 4 years behind
schedule and no full STARS workstations are yet deployed. We've been
hearing for years from the FAA that STARS has ``turned the corner''.
Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be the case. The DOT IG has warned
Congress on several recent occasions about STARS' schedule and costs
risks. The IG also noted that the FAA has not been able to produce a
deployment schedule and cost estimate for the 99 sites to be installed
after 2004. And the number of ``critical'' trouble reports arising from
the STARS software testing has increased over the last 6 months. All
this is occurring at a time when the war on terrorism and increased
homeland security funding is constraining FAA's funding.
In closing, I want to pledge my support to Federal Aviation
Administrator Garvey. Finding the right balance between present needs
and future musts for our nation's Air Traffic Control system is indeed
a challenging task. As a senior member of this subcommittee, I'm
committed to providing the necessary support and funding for the
aviation transportation infrastructure of this great nation.
INTRODUCTION OF JANE GARVEY
Senator Murray. Thank you very much.
With that, we will turn it over to the Honorable Jane
Garvey, Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration.
FAA OPENING REMARKS
Ms. Garvey. Well, thank you very much, and good morning. I
very much appreciate Chairman Murray, Senator Shelby, and
Senator Campbell being here this morning, and the opportunity
to present the FAA's budget request for 2003.
And I very much appreciate the kind words that all of you
have expressed to me this morning. But even more importantly, I
do appreciate and recognize that any success we have had in the
last 5 years has really been due to the leadership that has
been provided by this committee. Certainly, the smooth
transition to Y2K, modernizing the air traffic control system,
the improvements in safety, are due in large part to the
support that we have received from your leadership and from
this committee, and I am very much appreciative of that.
I would like to briefly, if I could, address four issues.
And Senator Shelby, I think it ties in to some of the comments
you made about what are the issues that are important, what
will the new Administrator need to focus on, as well. These are
areas that I believe are reflected in the President's budget,
but there are certainly issues that I will remain focused on
between now and August.
TRANSITION TO TSA
Since the events of September 11, our focus, and I think
rightly so, has been to restore the security of the national
air transportation system. I have certainly been working very
closely with Secretary Mineta, with Deputy Secretary Jackson,
and Under Secretary John Magaw to ensure a smooth transition to
the new Transportation Security Administration (TSA). That will
remain a high priority for us.
While most of these issues are now with Transportation
Security; and while Transportation Security is focused on many
modes of transportation, we will work very closely with the
Administration to ensure a smooth transition.
But I also am very mindful of the comments that you all
have made, which is that while we must view everything through
the prism of September 11, we really cannot and should not lose
sight of some very important aviation initiatives. And that is
critical and important as well.
OPERATIONAL EVOLUTION PLAN
And, again, I think if you look at the President's budget,
it does reflect a strong commitment to the safety and
efficiency programs within the FAA. It calls for a continuation
of the Operational Evolution Plan; that is critical for us.
You may remember that about a year ago, we were in this
room discussing the Operational Evolution Plan, and it really
represents a 10-year commitment, not just from the FAA, but
from the airports and airlines as well, to increase capacity by
about 30 percent.
Again, with enormous support from this committee, we have
begun to see some very strong benefits from that. You remember
last year, we talked about seven choke point areas and the
efforts we were going to take, the 21 initiatives. Those
initiatives will all be finished by June. We have opened new
sectors. We have put technology in place. All of that has
resulted in a reduction in delays by about 20 percent. We saw
those numbers before September 11 last summer, and we are still
seeing those numbers as we move forward.
Last December, we opened a new runway in Detroit. That is
included in the Operational Evolution Plan. We promised this
committee we would do that; we did. It increased capacity at
that airport by about 20 percent. As you have noted, we have
met every milestone and every deadline with Free Flight/Phase
One. I think that program is a success for us. So, certainly
staying the course on the Operational Evolution Plan,
recognizing that demand will come back, we know the numbers are
down now, but clearly within the next 12 to 24 months, we will
see demand back in full force.
SAFETY
I expect we will see some hub areas this summer where we
definitely will see some increase in travel, and we may even
see some of the delays that we want to avoid. With respect to
safety, the President's budget reflects a strong commitment to
the safety programs. Again with the help of this committee, we
are making progress in our runway safety program. The annual
rate of runway incursions declined overall in 2001. What is
even more significant is the reduction in the most severe
runway incursions, the ones that present the greatest risk.
Certainly, we are not declaring success in this area. We
know we have more to do, but we think the trend is heading in
the right direction. Our Air Transportation Oversight System,
ATOS, is, in our view, another very significant safety program.
The Inspector General took a snapshot in time a year ago on
this program and made some recommendations. They are very
consistent with the recommendations that we ourselves have
developed in cooperation with our own inspectors. They focused
on two principal areas. The first area was really to
incorporate and integrate our data. We have done that. The data
was fully integrated in January of this past year. The second
was to restructure the training programs for the inspectors. We
have done that and about 92 percent of the inspectors have been
retrained. All of them will be retrained before the end of the
year.
I think if you asked the Inspector General, if you talk
with Nick Sabatini, they will say ``This is the right approach,
and it affords the opportunity to re-target our resources where
we see the greatest problem.'' So I think that is a program
that needs to stay on target and to stay very focused.
FAA MANAGEMENT
Finally, Senator Murray, you and members of this committee
have consistently expressed interest in the management of the
FAA. Through your leadership, I think this committee has
challenged us to use more corporate tools to better manage our
own resources.
And I am very proud to say that the FAA received an
unqualified clean audit on our financial statements for 2001.
That was a phone call I enjoyed receiving from the Inspector
General.
We are continuing our initiatives to fully implement our
cost and performance accounting measures. We have a cost
accounting system that is in place for the entire air traffic
organization that represents 70 percent of the agency. Cost
accounting will be fully in place by the end of this year, but
we are already using it as a management tool to control our
costs and to understand our costs much better. It is a very
effective tool we believe in doing just as you have suggested,
which is controlling the operational costs that we have for the
agency.
So, four areas of focus for me between now and August, and
I think probably for the next Administrator as well, and that
is transition to the TSA, the Operational Evolution Plan, the
safety program, and the management improvements. And in each
one of those areas, I think we have made significant progress
over the last 5 years. I think there is still a great deal that
can be done, but I am very proud of the progress that we have
made to date.
FINANCING
Finally, I would like to take just a moment to comment on
this, on the FAA's 2002 budget. The agency, as you have
suggested, Madam Chairman, is facing a shortfall of about $200
million in its air traffic operating budget. That is due, as
you have suggested, to higher security costs of almost $90
million at our manned facilities, and to other unbudgeted costs
we are facing.
Although we were able to offset some of the shortfalls with
cuts in existing programs, we were not able to offset the full
amount. Therefore, the President's supplemental request
includes a provision that will allow the FAA to transfer $100
million, as you have said, from our capital accounts to cover
these unexpected security costs. We certainly would ask, once
again, for the committee's consideration of this request as you
debate the supplemental budget; and we certainly appreciate
that consideration.
And finally as I mentioned, this will probably be my last,
in fact, this will be my last appearance before this committee,
before the Appropriations Committee. And just a personal note,
it has been an extraordinary 5 years. I will say, once again,
that I probably cannot adequately express the tremendous
appreciation I feel to this committee, the sense of gratitude
that I have for both for the personal support and the support
that you have given to the agency; and also my deep admiration
for the men and women of the FAA, the inspectors, the
controllers, and the support staff, who make hundreds of
decisions on a daily basis that really affect the air traffic
system of this country and I think make it the greatest in the
world. It has been an honor to serve and really a pleasure to
be here this morning before you. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jane F. Garvey
Chairman Murray, Senator Shelby, Members of the Subcommittee: Thank
you for the opportunity to appear before you this morning to discuss
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and our budget request for
fiscal year 2003.
Last year, I spoke with you about our sense of urgency about
expanding the capacity of our nation's aviation system. At that time,
we faced a crisis of congestion, delays, and too many aircraft for too
few runways. Americans were frustrated with airline travel.
This year, those concerns pale in comparison with the challenges
our nation now faces. Our current crisis is far graver--its impact on
aviation far more acute.
This morning I want to discuss the significant developments and
challenges that are before the FAA. We are working to ensure a
successful transition of security operations and research to the
Transportation Security Administration (TSA). We are continuing our
efforts to provide a safe and efficient National Airspace System (NAS),
and we must address the unfinished business from last year regarding
capacity. While air traffic is still below the levels seen before
September 11, we are beginning to see growth return to pre-September 11
levels. We must use this time to make needed investments in
infrastructure.
To meet these critical objectives, the President's proposed fiscal
year 2003 budget provides capital funding for the FAA consistent with
the levels contained in the Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the
21st Century (AIR-21). Airport grants are funded at $3.4 billion;
capital modernization programs are funded at $3.0 billion; and, FAA
operations are funded at $7.5 billion.
I appreciate the efforts that you and the members of this
subcommittee have undertaken to fund the FAA's budget requests. Fully
enacting the President's budget request will permit the FAA to respond
and recover from the events of September 11, make necessary
improvements in the NAS and at the FAA, and improve operational safety
and efficiency throughout the entire commercial aviation system.
With the horrors of the September 11 attacks not far behind us, we
must draw from the same courage that Americans have demonstrated during
the last few months to proceed in this new era of aviation security,
led by TSA.
At the outset, I would like to commend Congress for their
bipartisan efforts that created the Aviation and Transportation
Security Act (ATSA). ATSA authorizes TSA to perform security screening
responsibilities that once belonged to air carriers and security
oversight functions that until recently were performed by the FAA. TSA
took over the screening of passengers and property and oversight
responsibilities on February 17, 2002. We at the FAA are committed to
maintain the highest level of dedication to aviation security through
the transition of these functions to the TSA.
maintaining our safety record
The United States has a remarkable safety record. We know that as
strong as our safety record is, we can make it better. We also know
that with the growing demand we must make it better. That is exactly
what we are doing. I want to take a moment to discuss three important
safety initiatives we currently have underway: our Safer Skies
initiative, the Air Transportation Oversight System (ATOS), and our
runway safety program.
Reducing the fatal accident rate for aviation is our primary goal
at the FAA. To accomplish this goal, the FAA has joined in partnership
with the aviation community to establish Safer Skies--a focused agenda
to make the skies even safer.
What we do in aviation is ``risk management.'' Risk must be
identified, analyzed, evaluated, and controlled. It must be reduced
with a disciplined and targeted approach. I am pleased to report to the
subcommittee we are making clear progress.
Safer Skies consists of three teams with similar goals to improve
aviation safety. The Commercial Aviation Safety Team (CAST), the
General Aviation Joint Steering Committee (JSC), and the Partners in
Cabin Safety (PICS).
--CAST is well on its way toward implementing safety interventions
for commercial accidents. CAST has been implementing strategies
to address Flight Into Terrain, Approach and Landing, and
Uncontained Engine Failures. Government and industry CAST
participants continue to develop intervention strategies for
runway incursions, loss of control, and turbulence. Weather
will be the next area for analysis.
--As part of Safer Skies, the General Aviation JSC aims to eliminate
the equivalent of an entire year's worth of accidents by 2007.
This committee is focusing on the two leading causes of general
aviation accidents: Controlled Flight into Terrain and Weather.
Intervention strategies differ from those being implemented for
commercial aviation due to the unique general aviation
operating environment. Other areas still to analyze include
Loss of Control and Survivability.
--PICS was chartered to bring the passenger into the cabin safety
equation by providing information to the public regarding cabin
safety issues in the following areas: Passenger Seat Belt
Discipline, Carry-on Baggage, and Passenger Interference with
Crew Members. FAA has developed a Cabin Safety web site to
provide guidance and educational material to the airlines and
general public.
Another risk management tool used by the FAA is the way in which we
inspect the nation's airlines. It is designed to identify safety trends
in order to spot and correct problems at their root cause before an
accident occurs.
The program, called the Air Transportation Oversight System (ATOS),
is now in place for the nation's 10 largest airlines--which handle 95
percent of U.S. passengers--and will ultimately include all U.S.
airlines.
FAA inspectors look at an airline as a whole, to see how the many
elements of its operations--from aircraft to pilots to maintenance
facilities to flight dispatch--interact to meet Federal standards. By
collecting and analyzing data on the many airline systems, FAA
inspectors are better able to target areas for improvement. Congress,
the General Accounting Office, the National Transportation Safety
Board, and the airlines agree with our approach.
ATOS already has yielded benefits: It has enabled us to create a
targeted, more effective surveillance plan. ATOS is a significant shift
in the way we oversee airlines and in the way our inspectors operate.
Our goals are to assure that safety standards are met and to get ahead
of issues that could potentially lead to the next accident.
One of the most important FAA safety initiatives is our effort to
reduce runway incursions. I am pleased to inform the subcommittee that
both the actual number and the rate of runway incursions declined in
2001 from their 2000 level. While this is a positive step, much remains
to be done to continue this trend.
The President's budget provides an increase of $5 million to
strengthen our runway safety program. These funds will be primarily
used to implement site-specific solutions at airports that sustain the
highest number of runway incursions.
Technological solutions are continuing to be implemented through
the Airport Movement Area Safety System (AMASS) and the Airport Surface
Detection Equipment (ASDE-X). The President's fiscal year 2003 budget
request provides $21.7 million for AMASS and $87.8 million for ASDE-X.
Twenty-seven of the 34 AMASS sites are scheduled for commissioning by
September 30. Factory Acceptance Testing for ASDE-X is scheduled to be
completed by August. We will continue to evaluate and assess low-cost
technologies for potential deployment to non-ASDE and ASDE-X airports.
In addition, the FAA is continuing to work to enhance pilot and
controller communication, provide additional training and education
opportunities for pilots and airport vehicle operators, and improve
operational procedures at our most congested airports.
preparing for growth
Even with the events of September 11, we must plan for aviation
growth.
Some priorities shifted after September 11, which caused the FAA to
update the Operational Evolution Plan (OEP). Even with recent events,
the OEP is fundamentally the same--a near 30 percent increase in
capacity by 2010. The OEP is our plan to ensure that Government is
doing everything that it can do; while at the same time have a
comprehensive plan that lays out realistic expectations. These
expectations are based on who has the ability to do what and when.
Let me highlight our progress on near-term OEP initiatives. These
initiatives are the heart of the FAA's ability to manage the NAS and
provide for future growth.
--Tactical, real-time approach to managing delays and demand around
weather and other issues is now a year-round approach. It is
standard operating procedure and how we do business. We are
using this collaborative, tactical approach every day of the
year. We are developing new tools and capabilities that better
define airspace constraints and support corrective actions.
--Reduced separation (RNAV) ``Area Navigation'' routes in the Gulf of
Mexico were successfully implemented last year, allowing for a
greater flow of aircraft in this area. They have been a large
success with estimated annual savings to operators of about $22
million dollars. We are implementing RNAV routes around the
nation and are on schedule to meet OEP milestones.
--We have made major progress on chokepoints. Ten new sectors opened
last year. One sector opened this year at the Cleveland Center.
Four radar positions opened at the Philadelphia and New York
TRACONS in late December. We will finish the chokepoints
initiative this June with four more enroute sectors in the
Cleveland and New York Centers.
--We opened a new 10,000-foot runway at Detroit Metro on December 11.
We have runways planned for completion in calendar year (CY)
2003 in Denver, Miami, Orlando and Houston. Minneapolis is
under construction and scheduled for completion in CY 2004.
--We are accelerating the User Request Evaluation Tool (URET). This
Free Flight Phase I tool allows for more direct routes,
increased arrival capacities, and a more predictable flight
experience for the passenger.
I am pleased to report that Kansas City, Cleveland, Memphis,
Indianapolis, and Chicago Centers are now operational with URET.
Atlanta and Washington Centers will rapidly follow in the URET
schedule.
I visited the Kansas City and Cleveland Centers in late February.
Controllers at both sites are pleased about this tool for its increased
productivity, ability to allow time for controllers to focus on
important tasks, as well as the conflict probe ability.
URET at Atlanta and Washington Centers will mark a very important
milestone for us. Achieving operational capabilities at both Centers
will complete the commitment the FAA made with and to the aviation
community 4 years ago to deliver on Free Flight Phase I. We did what we
said we were going to do and when we promised. What was critical and
essential to the success of Free Flight Phase I was holding the
consensus, following the plan, communicating with the community, and
the commitment by all to get this done.
a more business-like approach
I also want to take this opportunity to update the subcommittee on
our management efforts and reforms.
First, I want to inform the subcommittee that the FAA received an
unqualified, or ``clean,'' audit opinion on its fiscal year 2001
Consolidated Financial Statements, which shows how the agency is
spending its funds. Improvements we have made in the property
accounting system were the major step in achieving the improved rating.
By receiving an unqualified opinion, Congress can be assured that the
FAA's resources are appropriately accounted for and our financial
condition is being accurately reported.
Second, the FAA is moving toward the creation of an Air Traffic
Organization (ATO) and the hiring of a Chief Operating Officer (COO).
The ATO will be a performance based air traffic services
organization. It will commit to clear objectives, specific measurable
goals, customer service standards, and targets for improved
performance. It is designed to make certain that our air traffic
services, from acquisition to delivery to operation, are highly
responsive to user needs and more accountable for performance. A Chief
Operating Officer will lead the ATO.
In addition, the FAA is fully committed to finishing our cost and
performance initiatives, which include cost accounting and labor
distribution reporting (LDR). Our cost accounting system is well
underway, currently tracking over 70 percent of our cost on a monthly
basis. All FAA lines of business will have cost accounting in place by
November of this year to coincide with the implementation of the FAA's
new accounting system, DELPHI.
Our LDR initiative will improve the cost information provided to
the cost accounting system and FAA managers to better understand our
largest cost element--our labor. We are currently collecting labor data
from six FAA organizations, and this activity will be implemented
across the FAA by the end of this fiscal year.
In conclusion, I want to take a moment to once again thank
Congress, and especially this subcommittee, for its support of the FAA.
The President's fiscal year 2003 budget is the last budget that I
present to this subcommittee as my 5-year term will end this coming
August. I have enjoyed the working relationship that I have with you,
Senator Murray, and the members of the subcommittee.
I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Ms. Garvey.
We have been joined by Senator Stevens. Would you like to
give an opening statement before we do our questions?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS
Senator Stevens. No. I just, Madam Chairman, dropped by
because I know what Ms. Garvey just said is the case, and this
is probably her last appearance, and I wanted to stop by and
thank her for her consideration of so many issues that affect
my State and aviation in general. You have done a wonderful job
and really can take with you a legacy of not only understanding
the system, but cooperating with Congress and with everyone
concerned to improve our air traffic system and improve its
safety. I think I just join all concerned, I think, in thanking
you for so much that you have done, and particularly for your
personal visits to Alaska. We will welcome you back without
regard to where you are working, Jane.
Ms. Garvey. Thank you very much.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
Ms. Garvey. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Murray. Senator Kohl, would you like to make an
opening statement before we turn to questions?
Senator Kohl. No. I do not have any questions.
Senator Murray. Very good.
SECURITY OF AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL FACILITIES
Ms. Garvey, as I mentioned in my opening statement
following September 11, you were required to rapidly spend $100
million to better secure your air traffic control facilities
against terrorist attacks. And I understand that, separate from
that $100 million expense, you were required to absorb another
$100 million in unanticipated costs.
Do you have any continuing concerns regarding the adequacy
of security around your air traffic control facilities?
Ms. Garvey. Senator, I think that is an issue you always
have to keep focused on. We are certainly working very closely
with our air traffic controllers. We have done threat
assessments. We are in close communication, obviously, with
intelligence; with the FBI, in particular. So, it is something
we are constantly looking at.
I think we have taken all the right steps, but I think as
we move forward and we learn more, we will have to continue to
look at that. I think in some cases, some of the steps we took
immediately after September 11, we have been able to step back
from, again working with the controllers. In some cases the
armed guards are being replaced by fences. Those are the kinds
of steps and those are the kinds of issues we continue to look
at.
UNANTICIPATED OPERATIONS COSTS
Senator Murray. What other unanticipated expenditures have
you experienced this year that resulted in that $200 million
shortfall?
Ms. Garvey. Well, there are certainly issues around
communication and some additional program issues that we had
not anticipated. I continue to work and as the Deputy does, as
well, with our Chief Information Officer (CIO), to continue to
look at even some of the protection of the air traffic
infrastructure; not just the facilities themselves, but also
the air traffic control system itself. So, again, we have
budgeted that. We found ways to cover it, but it will continue
to be a concern as we move forward.
Senator Murray. What will be the impact of your plans to
slow the hiring of new air traffic controllers and reduce the
training expenditures for air traffic controller?
Ms. Garvey. I think those are two areas that I am
particularly disappointed in. Those are steps that you do not
like to take. When we have the work that I talked about, choke
points for example, just to give one illustration, we have
opened a number of new sectors. That has meant some additional
responsibilities for controllers. And they have taken that on
and they have really done it very, very well; but clearly, it
is an additional workload, in some cases. Wanting to make sure
that we could provide the kind of staffing that we have wanted
to, we have made a commitment to that. It is difficult to have
to hold back for a while on that. That is not something you
like to do as prepare for the future.
Certainly, training is another area that I have concerns
about. We have got a lot of work going on to reduce and
operational errors, and we are beginning to see a decrease in
errors of about 4 percent. We are taking some right steps, but
a cornerstone of that is additional training for the
controllers, and I am particularly concerned that some of that
training may have to be held back as we meet that shortfall.
Senator Murray. Will those slowdowns still be necessary if
we provide the $100 million supplemental that the
Administration requested?
Ms. Garvey. We will be able to reinstate all of those, or
if not all, nearly all of those training programs and, again
begin to hire. I think the key is, of course, when a
supplemental is passed within the fiscal year.
IMPACT OF SHORTFALL ON SAFETY ISSUES
Senator Murray. Do you have any safety concerns, regarding
your initiatives, to reduce the contract maintenance of air
traffic control systems and service redundance systems?
Ms. Garvey. Madam Chairman, we have been very, very careful
as we look at these issues that we are not affecting critical
safety issues, and so clearly if we would not take those steps.
One of the hallmarks of the American aviation system is the
redundancies that we are able to build in.
So, while I think we can live without some of the
redundancies, you certainly do not want to remove too many, nor
do you want to see that in a longstanding way. So we have been
very careful to protect the most critical ones. I think, again,
that is the kind of issue we have to constantly evaluate and
guard against.
FUNDING SOURCE FOR SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST
Senator Murray. The Administration's budget request for the
2002 supplemental seeks language allowing you to divert funds
from your investments in air traffic control systems in the
Facilities and Equipment account, and the AIP account, to cover
part of your operations shortfall. Why was it determined that
FAA must eat its security expenditures out of its own hide,
when the Administration is simultaneously requesting $4.4
billion for new security requirements through the TSA?
Ms. Garvey. Those are always difficult decisions. I think
from the FAA's perspective, we put forward a request for $100
million. We are certainly pleased that the Secretary's office,
OMB, and the Administration supports and recognizes the needs
we have. I know that the Secretary's office struggled and tried
very hard to certainly stay within the spending line. And this
really was the determination. But clearly the fact is the $100
million is a recognized need. We are pleased with that.
Senator Murray. Is it fair to assume that that budget
proposal did not originate in the FAA?
Ms. Garvey. We put forward the request for $100 million.
That is, we did do that.
SUMMER TRAFFIC AND OVERTIME COSTS
Senator Murray. Summer is going to be upon us very soon;
actually today out here. But hopefully, hopefully the traffic
spike that always accompanies the summer travel season will be,
as well. Do you currently have enough money in your operations
budget to cover the customary amount of overtime that you
generally use during the summer travel season?
Ms. Garvey. I think without the supplemental, that will be
a concern as we move forward. We are going to have to watch
that very carefully. I think you are absolutely right. We are
starting to see that travel come back. We expect that this
summer some of our busy hubs will once again be very busy, so
it does put an additional strain on the Ops budget.
Certainly with the supplemental, we will work very hard
with you all to make sure that that money is there, and the
resources are there.
USE OF AIP FOR SECURITY COSTS
Senator Murray. The Transportation Security Act allows
airports to use AIP funds for security-related expenditures for
2002 only. Funding for this program, which totals $3.3 billion
in 2002, is primarily intended for investments, of course, in
airport capacity and safety improvements. Can you shed any
light on how much of the $3.3 billion appropriated for 2002 is
likely to be used for the cost of installing explosive
detection systems?
Ms. Garvey. Madam Chairman, as you indicated in your
comments, some of this is still being discussed within the
Administration. And let me answer it, if I could, in two ways.
One is, if you look historically at how much out of AIP
went towards security, it was generally about 2 to 3 percent,
if you look at the historical commitment. It was essentially
for things like fences or access cards and so forth, very much
within the guidelines. With Congress's help this year, much
more flexibility was given to the airports, which I think they
are very grateful for. The $175 million that Congress
appropriated, again, was a very big help.
We are right now, at the Secretary's request, pulling
together all of the costs that have been incurred by the
airports. We should be getting that this week. The very early
estimates I saw was that it might be about 12 percent of the
$3.3 billion, but again we need to get a much clearer sense of
that.
We are just getting those numbers. When we get that in,
which, again, will be this week, we will be sitting down with
TSA to really take a look at both the concerns that they have
from a security point of view, and certainly working with the
Secretary and the Deputy Secretary to make the policy
determination.
Senator Murray. Will the airports be required, by the FAA
or by TSA, to use a portion of their AIP entitlement funds to
cover the cost of installing explosive detection systems?
Ms. Garvey. At this point, that policy call has not yet
been made. I think the first step was really to understand what
the costs would be, to really understand the magnitude of the
problem. I expect that determination will be made fairly
quickly. I am hearing, and I am sure you are as well, from
airports that are concerned, as you indicated, with
construction seasons and so forth; so I think there certainly
is an urgency to this issue.
Senator Murray. What factors will determine how much of the
AIP program will be diverted for the installation of these, and
can you tell us when the Administration is making the decision?
Ms. Garvey. I am sure that the Secretary will want to make
this decision or come to grips with this very quickly. Our
responsibility in the short term is to get these numbers to
them. We said we would get it to them by the end of this week,
and we will certainly do that.
I think one of the factors, certainly, will be
understanding the magnitude of the problem: Are we really
talking about something that is enormous in scope? Are we
talking about something that if we take part of it from AIP, we
could still make it work?
I think part of our responsibility will be to also present
to both the Secretary and TSA an understanding of just what the
capacity needs are out there. We have got a very good handle on
that.
USE OF AIP FOR SECURITY EXPENDITURES
Senator Murray. Well, let me just ask you for your personal
opinion on whether you think it would be wise for Congress,
with the competing requirements between safety and security,
whether we should change the law again and allow the AIP funds
to be used for security expenditures instead of safety and
capacity projects?
Ms. Garvey. For the challenges that we are facing, and
again I have not seen the final numbers, but I think for the
challenges we are facing, more flexibility is probably
something that I would certainly want to see considered. I
would like to see that considered for a bit more time as we
move forward. But, again, having said that the capacity issues
are still very real as well. It is going to be a very tough
balance, but this is an extraordinary time, and I think we are
going to have to face some very, very tough issues.
Senator Murray. Thank you. Senator Shelby.
USE OF AIP FOR SECURITY COSTS
Senator Shelby. Thank you. Ms. Garvey, I am concerned that
TSA is not budgeting the cost of installing EDS machines at our
airports and is reviewing the AIP solely as a funding source to
implement security-related requirements, which according to the
I.G. could exceed $2 billion. Other estimates even run higher.
Do you have any comments on that?
Ms. Garvey. Senator, I think the points that you all made
in your opening comments are exactly ones certainly that I
share and I believe the Secretary does as well.
The capacity issues are very real; and while we do have
certainly some very real issues around security, and looking
for a little more flexibility may be appropriate for the next
year or so, we still cannot lose sight of the capacity issues.
Somehow finding a balance, it may be a little bit more on
security than we have ever had before, is going to be very
important.
EN ROUTE AUTOMATION MODERNIZATION PROGRAM
Senator Shelby. The FAA's en route automation modernization
program, what do you call it? ERAM? It is critical to keeping
the national air space system operating and meeting the
anticipated demand for air travel. This acquisition program, as
you well know, is in the early stages, but already there is
concern that this software-intensive effort has the potential
for significant cost growth and schedule delay. It is a high-
risk program, and costs could easily reach $1.5 billion, we
have been told.
What is your strategy for moving forward and ensuring
competition here? And what will be the criteria for selecting
the prime contractor?
Ms. Garvey. Well, as you may remember, Senator, we did at
one point move forward on a sole source, but it was challenged
and we are in a competitive process right now.
Senator Shelby. Real competition is good, if it is real
competition.
Ms. Garvey. Yes. Yes. I agree with you, Senator. There has
been a protest that was filed. However, the two firms that are
involved are engaged in mediation, and those talks are
literally underway now. Some were held last week, additional
talks, I believe, are being held this week. So I am hopeful
that the mediation process will result in something that allows
us to move ahead so that competition is protected but still we
are able to move ahead. I think that is critical and important.
ENVIRONMENTAL STREAMLINING
Senator Shelby. Has the FAA basically slipped environmental
streamlining to the back burner?
Ms. Garvey. Actually, the answer to that is no. Although I
will tell you that I probably personally have not focused on it
as much as I did last year, I am delighted to say that we have
got a pretty dedicated staff that----
Senator Shelby. I think you have focused on security in the
last few months, which is great.
Ms. Garvey. That is right. That is right. Thank you. But
the airports office, Lynn Pickard, who actually works on this
very carefully and has worked long and hard on it, had to
continue discussions with the President's Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) and came up with a whole series of
categorical exemptions that could be included. And CEQ has been
very helpful. We have a lot of work underway there, work with
CEQ. And I think that has been helpful. The dedicated teams
that we have had in place for particular airports have
continued with their work; and, again, it is not shortchanging
the environment, but actually streamlining it to some degree.
Finally, we have asked for some additional lawyers in our
budget for next year, who will help us with the environmental
work.
Senator Shelby. To move the process.
Ms. Garvey. To move the process. The legal issues,
sometimes, are the most troublesome as you move forward.
TIME TO CONSTRUCT RUNWAYS
Senator Shelby. Does it have to take approximately 12 years
to build runways, something like that?
Ms. Garvey. In some cases----
Senator Shelby. The total process.
Ms. Garvey. In some cases, that is correct. And certainly
if you begin from the very early stage of when the local
decisions are debated through, even before it gets to the
Federal level, that is absolutely true.
I think the area where we still need to work, and one area
that I suggest for another administrator, is coordination at
the Federal level among all the Federal agencies. In some
cases, I think we could probably do more work in that area.
Senator Shelby. But if you are going to increase capacity
and it takes 12 years, you are going to have further delays
here and there; are you not?
Ms. Garvey. That is exactly why the dedicated teams, those
teams that we put in place, particularly for some of those
runways where it affects the system, where there is a rippling
effect.
COST CONTROL
Senator Shelby. What steps has the FAA taken under your
leadership to ensure that current costs and schedule parameters
will be maintained? We are all interested in costs. You know,
this is an appropriations committee.
Ms. Garvey. Absolutely, Senator. As you should be. And I
certainly understand that.
First of all, I think the cost accounting really has been
and will continue to be a terrific tool for the FAA. Having a
cost accounting system in place where you can really drill down
and understand what your costs are and you can compare why is
it more expensive, for example, for communication lines to be
running in Chicago than it is in Atlanta, so that you can
really drill it down facility by facility and being able to
look at your costs. That is one way we can really control
costs.
If you look at some contracts that we have put in place, we
have included a fixed cost. Sometimes that works, sometimes it
does not. But in the cases where it does work, I think it has
the potential to save some money. We have included in some
cases some incentives for contractors to finish earlier, which
in the long run saves us money.
Senator Shelby. It works, does it not?
Ms. Garvey. It does work, absolutely. There are a number of
steps we have put in place, both internally and with our own
contractors. Again, more needs to be done, but we have made
some enormous progress in that area.
TECHNOLOGY FOR OCEANIC AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL
Senator Shelby. The Inspector General recently weighed in
on the FAA's latest effort, that is advanced technologies in
oceanic procedures, expressing a concern that the software
development continues to be a major risk.
What are you doing in that area to maintain the costs?
Ms. Garvey. Senator, the Inspector General talked about the
FAA taking a very close look and monitoring that very
carefully. We are doing that. We have a very aggressive and a
very good program manager in that particular program who is
doing exactly that. That contract has a fixed cost associated
with it, so there is a real incentive for the contractor to
stay within certain parameters. We are very much on top of that
particular contract.
WIDE AREA AUGMENTATION SYSTEM (WAAS) AND ASR-11
Senator Shelby. A couple of other things as I sum up here.
What about the WAAS signal? Where are we there, and where are
we going, you know? I have expressed my reservations about the
cost growth here, and the reduced capability of the program.
The second thing I would like for you to touch on is the
Air Force has certified the ASR-11 radar. The FAA is still
testing it. I have been told that the FAA will make a decision
to certify the radar on or about the 1st of May, which is a
couple of weeks away. Can you give us any sense of how these
tests are going?
Ms. Garvey. Let me start with the ASR-11, and then I will
go to WAAS. There have been some concerns raised about how well
the ASR-11 will perform in an operational setting.
Senator Shelby. Yes.
Ms. Garvey. We did some developmental work and testing in
the last couple of months, and I have not seen the final
results. It was actually finished, I believe, at the beginning
of April. My understanding is the results were pretty positive,
that they were overall good. We now move into more of an
operational testing with the controllers. I do not want to
prejudge that, but it sounds like this is heading in the right
direction. We have to look at that analysis more carefully, but
at least the reports that I have gotten have been promising.
On WAAS, we have made some terrific progress in the last 6
months. About a month ago, we had a pretty significant
breakthrough that was reported, I believe, at least in The
Washington Post. It may have been reported more widely than
that. In some of the developmental work that we were doing, we
had a breakthrough that was going to allow us to use the
precision approaches in about 5,000 small and mid-sized
airports. That was very, very good news.
Some of the concerns that we had a year ago and that the
contractor had as well have been surmounted. We believe this
breakthrough of about a month ago, will save about 2 years of
developmental work. And that will, in turn, of course, save
some money. We are still focused on the integrity, the safety
integrity piece, but the progress is moving in that area. I see
no difficulty in meeting that commissioning date of December,
2003.
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Murray. Thank you, Senator Shelby. We will go back
and forth, from side to side, so I will turn to Senator Kohl
next after him.
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And, Administrator
Garvey, welcome.
Ms. Garvey. Thank you, Senator.
SECURITY FOR CHARTERED AIRCRAFT
Senator Kohl. The Transportation Security Act includes a
provision to strengthen security requirements for chartered
aircraft. The new security program for chartered aircraft
larger than 18 seats is being developed at the Transportation
Security Administration. However, major gaps in the security
system still exist. It is a fact that today, even with all of
the progress we have made when it comes to security for
commercial airline travel, an individual can still charter a
747 and bring his friends on board without any screening of
those individuals or their luggage. They could just walk on the
plane and use it as a weapon similar to what occurred on
September 11.
What assurances can you give us that another terrorist
attack will not come from a charter jet? If passengers and
their luggage for these charter jets are not prescreened, as
they are not, then how can we be assured that another large jet
will not be hijacked and used as a weapon?
Ms. Garvey. Senator, and I know this has been a real issue,
both for you, and I would say, several members of Congress have
raised this as an issue as well. And I know it is one that TSA
is very, very focused on. I know in speaking with Under
Secretary Magaw, they are focused on so many issues within the
legislation of trying to meet the deadlines and so forth, but
this issue of chartered aircraft is one that I know they are
very focused on. And I will certainly bring that message to him
of your concern around this issue.
Senator Kohl. Well, let me----
Ms. Garvey. But these will have to be worked through with
the Under Secretary.
Senator Kohl. And I appreciate that, I know how much how
much you are genuinely concerned, but passing it on to TSA and
suggesting that they are working on it, and they will come up
with something as soon as possible is, somehow, something I
would like to hope that we could get beyond here today.
I mean, I asked just a simple question. And until they come
up with a better procedure, why should we not have a system
instituted immediately that would at least require that
passengers getting on chartered aircraft are wanded down?
Ms. Garvey. Yes.
Senator Kohl. You know, with the thing that they do when
you go to an airport? Sometimes they just have these hand-held
devices that they wand people, and at least hand-check their
baggage. I mean, I do not understand the bureaucracy that is
involved; that could be done today. And I would like to hope or
suggest to you that you have a conversation with Mr. Magaw, who
I know and is a very fine person, and at least respond to that
request that we are making. Because it is now, you know, 6
months or 7 months since September 11.
Ms. Garvey. Yes.
Senator Kohl. And really, chartered aircraft have no more
security, large chartered aircraft have no more security today
than they had before September 11, which was and is none. Is
that a reasonable request?
Ms. Garvey. Oh, absolutely, Senator. And I will do that.
Senator Kohl. Could I hope that within the next day or two,
you and I could have a telephone conversation and----
Ms. Garvey. Absolutely, yes, Senator.
Senator Kohl. I think that would be great.
Ms. Garvey. Thank you.
FLIGHT 587 ACCIDENT
Senator Kohl. I think that would be very significant.
One other comment I would like to make to you. On November
of 2001, New York City, still reeling from the September 11
attacks, as you know, suffered another blow with the crash of
Flight 587. And while the investigation results are not yet
conclusive, many people believe that this tragedy may have been
prevented with technology that exists today and continues to be
developed. Under FAA regulations, aircraft inspections are
often spaced, as you know, too infrequently. And they allow
airlines to design for cost savings, oftentimes over safety.
In addition to insufficient procedures for the inspection
of composite components within aircraft, it is quite possible
that the people who died on Flight 587 died as the result of
failure of the aircraft's composite tail fins. It is my
understanding that current technologies are being developed
that could have very possibly prevented such a failure, as well
as several other close calls that we have had.
One such technology is the idea of a Structural Health
Monitoring system called SHM. SHM systems would be implemented
in an aircraft to continuously monitor the critical structural
components using surface penetrating methods. This would enable
the operator to discover damage that could potentially lead to
failure, damage that may have been overlooked between scheduled
intervals.
Is the FAA doing anything, or what is the FAA doing to
encourage research in this area to prevent similar failures in
the future?
Ms. Garvey. Senator, I can certainly tell you that we are
doing a great deal of research on both composites and a whole
host of issues, again, with a lot of help from this Committee,
from wiring to flammable materials, et cetera. So, if you get
an opportunity to ever visit the Technical Center in Atlantic
City, it is really quite extraordinary. I think it is about the
best in the world, with the technologies that are being
explored.
I am not particularly familiar with this technology that
you have mentioned, but I certainly will find out about it, and
will be able to talk with you about it when we talk over the
next couple of days. I will certainly find out about it.
Just one note, though, about that particular accident.
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD
We are working hand-in-glove with the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). I have talked with the
chairwoman several times. We have done some additional
inspections of the tail to make sure that we are not seeing
difficulties in other aircraft as well. So, there is a
tremendous amount of discussion and work going on at the
technical level, all the way up the line between the NTSB and
the FAA, and we are very focused on it together. While we do
not know yet what the cause is, I think people are working very
hard and taking all the appropriate steps. But I will find out
about this technology in particular, and it may be that some
folks at the Tech Center are already working on it. I will find
out about it.
Senator Kohl. All right. Thank you very much. I thank you,
Madam Chairman.
Senator Murray. Thank you, Senator Kohl. Thank you, Senator
Campbell, for your patience. You have been here since the
beginning of the hearing. I appreciate it.
FIXED BASED OPERATIONS (FBOS)
Senator Campbell. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I have about a
half dozen questions. Unfortunately, I have got a 11:30
conflict, so I would like to submit those in writing, if I
could, and just make a couple of comments before I have to run.
One was related to what Senator Kohl was mentioning about
private aircraft. In my other life, I am an instrument-rated
pilot, and I used to fly a lot. And I can tell you that the
biggest weakness in our whole safety link is in the Fixed Based
Operations (FBOs). Not that there is anything wrong with the
Fixed Based Operations (FBOs), but literally anybody can go out
on a flight line to get on a private plane.
And some of them have huge lifting capabilities, as you
might guess. There are some pretty big private aircraft out
there, with almost no consideration of security at all, that I
can see, in a lot of the smaller communities.
In addition to that, most of those private planes, some big
ones, they buy their fuel from the FBOs. And the trucks are
parked right there. They fill them and they park them right
beside the hangars where they are fueling, sometimes with
thousands of gallons on board and on those trucks too, which
seemed to me that is another really weak place, too.
And I do not know what the FAA is doing about it, but I
know I just live a few miles from one where I used to fly out a
lot. And it just seems to me there is a real need there in
dealing with private aircraft, too.
CERTIFICATION OF ASR-11
A second point: Senator Shelby mentioned the ASR-11. I know
that Senator Stevens and Senator Murray both have some airports
that we are waiting for that ASR-11, as I did in Eagle County.
Colorado has been waiting a number of years for an upgraded
instrument landing system. And it was mentioned that that ASR-
11 has been certified by the Air Force, but not by the FAA. As
I understood you to say it, it is kind of on the way. You are,
it is pretty close now; is that correct?
Ms. Garvey. We are working on that, and I need to double-
check on the Air Force.
Senator Campbell. All right.
Ms. Garvey. I am not sure that they have actually; I think
we are doing it together.
[The information follows:]
The Air Force is currently in the testing phase and expects to
certify the ASR-11 in the August-September 2002 time frame.
Senator Campbell. Well, I just mention that, because Eagle
County is used by the Air Force regularly. They have a
helicopter training unit there, and they use it as one of the
flight training places in their system, too. It seems to me if
it is good enough for the Air Force, it ought to be good enough
for civilian traffic, too.
SCHEDULED PASSENGER SERVICE AT CENTENNIAL AIRPORT
And lastly, Madam Chairman, in 1996, Congress amended the
national aviation statutes to improve local control over
community airfields. That mandate means that small aircraft and
small airports, such as Centennial which is south of Denver,
could not be forced to handle airline service of 30 or more
passenger seats. That was 1996, before you even took your
present position. But it is my understanding after 6 years, the
FAA still has not written the rules to implement the law. So
Centennial Airport, and I imagine a lot of other ones like it,
has lost more than $7 million in Federal funding since 1998
alone for not complying with these now outdated rules that call
for an accepted schedule passenger service.
I mentioned this to you before we had our meeting and
Administrator Garvey has agreed to come to Colorado to meet
with officials of Centennial Airport about this particular
question; but I did want to also put that on the record that it
is a big concern to us in Colorado. And I apologize for having
to run, and I will submit my questions in writing. Thank you.
Ms. Garvey. We will just have to do that before August,
Senator.
Senator Campbell. How about next week? We will. We will do
it before August.
Ms. Garvey. Thank you.
Senator Campbell. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Murray. Thank you, Senator Campbell.
VIOLATION OF RESTRICTED AIRSPACE
On April 1st, a Frontier Airlines aircraft violated
restricted air space by flying over the White House, the
Washington Monument, and the National Observatory. And earlier
in the day, that same crew was diverted to Dulles after failing
to produce the password necessary to land at Reagan National
Airport. Given all the restrictions that are in place around
the air space around Washington, how is it possible that this
crew could so blatantly violate them?
Ms. Garvey. Senator, I could not agree more, that just
should not have happened. And as you may know, Madam Chairman,
the crew was grounded and retrained. We have had extensive
discussions with Frontier about some additional training, so I
do not expect that will happen again. We have taken the steps
necessary, and quite frankly, I do not think it should have
happened even the first time.
Senator Murray. What can you tell us about the frequency of
these kinds of violations?
Ms. Garvey. I would like to get more accurate numbers for
the record. I think we have certainly had some incidents,
though I do not want to suggest that it is widespread. Every
time we do have an incident, there is either retraining or an
appropriate action taken. Sometimes it is a very minor matter
of moving into the restricted areas, and other times it is
something that we believe is more serious, more blatant.
Senator Murray. Do you think it is common, a common problem
for crews not to know these rules?
Ms. Garvey. I would not say it is a common problem, but I
would like to get you, if I could for the record, a more exact
number.
[The information follows:]
The number of airspace violations concerning Prohibited Area 56 (P-
56) is not a common occurrence. Below is the total number of operations
at Reagan National Airport (DCA) and the number of airspace violations
for P56 from 1998 to present:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Number of
Year operations violations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998.................................... 313,938 24
1999.................................... 334,768 20
2000.................................... 342,790 17
2001.................................... 270,145 14
2002 \1\................................ 47,602 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Current data as of May 10, 2002.
AIR TRANSPORTATION OVERSIGHT SYSTEM (ATOS)
Senator Murray. Last week, the Inspector General released
his report on the Air Transportation Oversight System, ATOS.
The report applauded the goals of ATOS, which is to identify
systemic safety risks in air carrier operations, utilizing data
that is collected by your inspector work force.
However, the report points out a number of areas where ATOS
has fallen woefully short. For example, the I.G.'s report
stated that your inspectors are not adequately trained, your
data analysis is lacking, and you need to do a better job of
following up when deficiencies are identified.
How difficult has it been to get inspectors to shift from
the traditional methods of inspections to using ATOS?
Ms. Garvey. Madam Chairman, I do not think it is ever easy
when you are talking about really a cultural shift in an
agency, and you are changing from one system that people have
grown up with professionally to another. It is always a
challenging observation, but I would make two comments.
One is that the recommendations that the I.G. came out with
were exactly what our own inspectors told us, as well. So there
is no argument with the recommendations that were made. And, in
fact, even in the midst of the I.G. report, which was about a
year and a half ago, we had begun to implement those
recommendations. The data is now integrated. We have the
analysts on board to do it. We are in the process of retraining
our inspectors under a program that the inspectors designed
with us.
That will be completed by the end of this year, but I think
that is going to be a constant issue for us, because it really
is changing the way we are doing business. But what I am
encouraged by, the comments from the inspectors and from the
I.G. are consistent, and from our own managers, in saying this
is the approach we should be taking, this is the direction we
should be going. That part is the most encouraging.
Senator Murray. ATOS currently only covers 10 air carriers.
When do you expect the rest to be covered?
Ms. Garvey. We are in transition right now. We are
beginning to work with the other carriers. I had a long
conversation with the Inspector General about this last week,
on the one hand, you want to push ahead and on the other you
want to make sure that you have got the program solidly
grounded. So we are moving ahead to the other airlines, but
also being mindful of the fact that we still have some work to
do even with the fundamental program that we have. We are in a
transition to the new program with the other carriers, that is,
beginning to discuss with them both what the safety systems
need to look like, what kind of training they need to begin
preparing for. So we have begun those conversations already. I
would like to get back to you with a time line on that.
Senator Murray. All right.
Ms. Garvey. I want to factor in some of the Inspector
General's comments as well.
[The information follows:]
It is important to note that currently the non-ATOS air carriers
are in a transition program called the Surveillance and Evaluation
Program that introduces system safety and ATOS tools in a phased-in,
systematic, modular process. Flight Standards plans to have all of the
remaining 14 CFR 121 air carriers (approximately 140 air carriers)
phased-in under the ATOS system by September 30, 2004.
HIRING OF SAFETY STAFFING
Senator Murray. Very good. Ms. Garvey, this subcommittee
provided a total of $15.8 million over and above your requests
last year to increase the number of safety inspectors and
aircraft certification personnel. Specifically, the purpose of
these funds was to get the inspector work force up to the level
that was identified as necessary in the 90-day review study
that followed the Valu-Jet crash. What progress has been made
in getting these new inspectors on board and how many of them
have you brought on board to date?
Ms. Garvey. The progress to date, is slower than I would
have liked. September 11, really has thrown a number of issues
off. But in fact, talking with our AVR staff yesterday, the
numbers will be on board by the end of the year. So we will
meet that commitment. We are grateful for that support. We
recognize the necessity of having those inspectors in place, so
we will have it completed by the end of the year, but it is a
little slower than I would like.
Senator Murray. Can you assure us that these positions will
not be delayed as a result of the shortfall in your operations
budget?
Ms. Garvey. We are committed to getting those done,
absolutely, because of the safety implications.
Senator Murray. Given the training deficiencies that the
I.G. identified, can you assure us that these new inspectors
will be fully trained for their responsibilities?
Ms. Garvey. Madam Chairman, they will be fully trained; and
again, the program that we have restructured with the help of
our inspectors will be the basis of that training.
Senator Murray. Does your fiscal year 2003 budget continue
the funding for these new positions?
Ms. Garvey. I would have to go back and look at that.
Yes, it does. I am sorry.
Senator Murray. Can you give me a schedule for filling
those?
Ms. Garvey. Yes, we will.
[The information follows:]
The funding added by Congress was to restore staffing levels in
Regulation and Certification to the fiscal year 1998 levels. In order
to reach the fiscal year 2002 staffing level of 3,327, the monthly
hiring schedule, which covers new positions and backfilling for
attrition, is:
April............................................................. +3
May............................................................... +18
June.............................................................. +31
July.............................................................. +36
August............................................................ +32
September......................................................... +13
______
Total......................................................... 133
FAA ASSISTANCE TO AIRLINES WITH FINANCIAL DIFFICULTY
Senator Murray. The experience of Eastern Airlines taught
us that airlines in financial difficulty are sometimes tempted
to cut corners when it comes to necessary maintenance and
complying with safety regulations. Given the fact that we have
a great many airlines in financial difficulty, many more than
we had a year ago, should your inspection systems be better
targeted on the carriers that are struggling?
Ms. Garvey. Absolutely, that is an issue that we do
inherently focus on. In other words, if an airline is in
trouble, either financially or is having union difficulties,
our inspectors will spend a little bit more time with those
particular carriers. And that is certainly the case; that is
the case now.
I also think that some of the voluntary disclosure
programs, both the Aviation Safety Action Plan (ASAP) and the
Flight Operations Quality Assurance (FOQA) program, which again
we got a lot of support from Congress on, is also helpful,
because we often hear from some of the people within those
airlines when they think there are difficulties or areas that
we need to focus on. So, we are paying particular attention to
that, but you are absolutely right. Focusing and encouraging
our inspectors to spend more time with carriers that may be
experiencing some difficulty is important.
Senator Murray. Okay. Have you seen any evidence that there
are any air carriers that are cutting corners right now?
Ms. Garvey. I have not, Madam Chairman. I have not seen any
evidence of that. And I will ask again when I get back today.
But I have not seen any evidence. It is clearly an issue that
our inspectors are aware of and are focused on.
[The information follows:]
The FAA has established procedures to work with air carriers
experiencing problems. During these conditions, the FAA may initiate
additional surveillance to ensure that the carrier is continuing to
operate safely. The Certificate Holding District Offices (CHDO's), in
coordination with their regional offices, develop and execute
surveillance plans to provide additional oversight of key air carrier
functions. Such plans could provide for increasing the number and type
of inspections performed on the air carrier's training and maintenance
programs, increasing the number on en route inspections performed by
inspectors and increasing surveillance by geographic inspectors. As
surveillance and inspections are conducted weekly reporting is analyzed
in order to retarget inspections as appropriate. Specific guidance for
these processes is provided in inspector handbooks (FAA Order 8400.10--
Operations: FAA Order 8300.10--Airworthiness).
STANDARD TERMINAL AUTOMATION REPLACEMENT SYSTEM (STARS)
Senator Murray. Okay. Ever since the multi-billion dollar
debacle known as the AAS program was terminated, your air
traffic control facilities have been waiting for long overdue
technology upgrades. One of those upgrades, the STARS system,
is finally nearing the stage of being deployed in air traffic
control towers around the country several years later than
originally anticipated. But despite assurance of improved cost
controls from some of your managers, you are now proposing to
reprogram almost $38 million from other FAA procurements in
order to keep your installation schedule for this year. Given
the program's history so far, why should we be confident that
the program will continue to stay on schedule?
Ms. Garvey. Madam Chairman, we have not missed a deadline
on STARS in the last year and a half. And I think that the
difficulties that we experienced in the early days are behind
us.
The date that we are all very focused on is November, which
is Philadelphia. We are going to make that. In fact, I intend
to come back for that. I have told the Inspector General that I
will come back to that ribbon-cutting with him, as well.
Senator Murray. Why do we have a $38 million cost overrun?
Ms. Garvey. The $38 million, which is the reprogramming
that we have discussed a little bit with the staff is due to a
couple of factors. One is there was more site preparation with
some of the sites. There were more site difficulties. We also
accelerated Philadelphia, which was not our intent when we
first put the program together, but because of compelling
issues, we have accelerated Philadelphia, so there is money
associated with that, as well. Those are the really two
principal reasons for the cost increases. November is it. We
went to early display configuration earlier than expected in
both Memphis and in Bradley; much earlier, 6 weeks earlier in
one case. So I expect we will meet that date of November.
Senator Murray. Well, I appreciate the optimism. But since
STARS is dependent on the ASR-11 digital radar, which has its
own technical problems, do you have any contingency plans in
case we have any further delays?
Ms. Garvey. Right. We do, Madam Chairman. First of all, I
am encouraged by the testing that was done in March that really
indicates it looks pretty good. There may be, and again, I do
not want to be overly optimistic on the ASR-11. But in any
case, ASR-11 becomes an issue, in about 2005 in terms of the
STARS waterfall. There are contingency plans that are being
developed if the ASR-11 proves not to work out. But we do have
contingency plans that are in place. And, again, that would
impact the waterfall towards the end, not in the beginning.
Senator Murray. Thank you very much.
Senator Durbin.
BALANCING SAFETY AND SECURITY
Senator Durbin. Thanks, Madam Chairman. Administrator
Garvey, thank you for being here today and thank you for your
service.
Ms. Garvey. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Durbin. You have faced extraordinary challenges,
not to mention September 11 and all of the other things
attendant to it, and you have met each of those challenges so
well. I really am glad to count you as a friend.
Ms. Garvey. Thank you.
Senator Durbin. And I am happy to have worked with you over
the 5 years that you served as Administrator under two
different presidents.
I would like to ask you, before I go into a specific
question which you can probably anticipate, I would like to ask
you if you would reflect on a couple of things for this
Committee and those who are following this hearing. I would
like to divide it into safety and security. Safety being the
ordinary operations of our aircraft across America, Security
addressing the issues that have been raised since September 11.
As you are about to move on and reflect on what you have
learned and try to look ahead, what would you say to us in
Congress? What are the things that we should be mindful of when
it comes to challenges to maintain and improve the safety of
our air service? If there are one or two things that you think
we might overlook, and we should not?
Ms. Garvey. To some degree, I think some of the discussion
a little bit earlier points to one of the challenges: how can
we provide for the greatest levels of security without
sacrificing and without losing sight of some of the very
critical safety programs? So I think, for Congress and for the
Administration, the enormous challenge of providing the right
kind of balance, which means being strategic and tactical to
some degree in resource dedication.
It will mean for TSA and for Congress and for the
Administration choosing the right technologies. You cannot do
all the technologies, but what are the right technologies that
will give us the kind of seamless system that we need. So, I
think finding that right balance between some of the security
priorities as well as some of the very, very critical safety
priorities.
DECISIONS ON TECHNOLOGY
Senator Durbin. But you think it comes down to technology.
That really is most important?
Ms. Garvey. I think that is going to be certainly a key for
TSA. And is it bio-metrics, is it EDS machines, is it, you
know, better access for employees, access codes and so forth? I
think that is really where the challenge is going to be. What
are the right strategic and tactical decisions around
technology? Because you simply cannot do it all, and how do you
sort through that?
Senator Durbin. There is so much linkage here. I just left
a hearing that I chaired upstairs on the integrity of drivers'
licenses and State I.D. cards, which is a State issue. We have
some legislation we are considering, which would try to
establish some national standards, but issued by States.
That is the key to entry into airports, into our economy,
and there is such linkage. If that is not done well, if
identification is falsified at the start, then all of the other
precautions that follow are meaningless.
So, there is such linkage there. And I think that would
apply, certainly, to the security side of it.
PENDING LEGISLATION ON CHICAGO'S O'HARE AIRPORT
About 5 or 6 years ago, someone from the FAA anonymously,
in a Newsweek article, said that the greatest single thing that
could be done to improve aviation across America is to do
something about O'Hare.
That was said anonymously. And it might have been before
you came on board, but we are trying to focus on that now. I
thank you and the FAA for at least working with us every step
of the way to review what we have been doing, a historic
agreement between our Governor and the Mayor of the City of
Chicago, trying to finally take 40-year old runways and make
them more modern and safer.
I do not know if you have personally seen it, but your
staff has been reviewing the legislation. I want to ask you to
comment on specifics. Let me ask this question: Have you seen
anything in the proposals that have been brought to the FAA,
which suggests that there would be any circumventing of the
authority of the FAA to make the final decisions on safety and
the environment and all of your other responsibilities under
law?
Ms. Garvey. Senator, I have not seen the final language
yet, but I understand our staffs are working very closely, and
they have not brought anything to my attention that would give
me that kind of concern. I know there were issues in the
beginning, but I think we worked very well together. I continue
to think of what you all in Chicago and Illinois were able to
accomplish as a model for all of us, because it was
extraordinarily difficult and with very strong feelings on both
sides, but with a lot of help from Members of Congress, the
issue was finally brokered. And that was very important. I am
going to be talking in one of my favorite States later this
week, and it is certainly a good model.
Senator Durbin. Well, thank you. And I might add that we
were happy to receive, just a day or so ago, the Airline Pilots
Association endorsement of this legislation, as well.
Ms. Garvey. Great.
Senator Durbin. Administrator Garvey, thank you for your
service to our country and to the FAA, and wish you the very
best and hope we can work together in the future.
Ms. Garvey. Thank you. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Murray. Thank you, Senator Durbin.
Senator Bennett.
REMARKS BY SENATOR BENNETT
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much. Administrator Garvey,
I join with my colleagues in thanking you for your service. You
are getting close to the end of your 5-year appointment and, as
you know, I have some personal experience with FAA
administrators, having served in the Department and it is not
the easiest assignment in the Department.
As a matter of fact, it has become the graveyard of a
number of careers. And the fact that you have handled yourself
with such competence and such aplomb through this 5-year period
that you have served two presidents of two different parties
with equal diligence, you deserve our congratulations and our
thanks and our best wishes for whatever it is you decide to do.
Ms. Garvey. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Bennett. I think rather than being the graveyard of
a career, I am hoping this will be a launching pad for you for
wherever you go on to.
Ms. Garvey. Thank you very much.
FAA'S PERFORMANCE AT THE OLYMPICS
Senator Bennett. I also want to thank you for the FAA's
superb performance during the Olympics. The Olympics, it is
hard for us to remember now, but a time of some concern prior,
where after September 11 there were some serious voices raised
that they should be cancelled, that we would not be able to
keep them safe. If we did keep them safe, we could not keep
them accessible. If we cracked down on security, nobody would
come. Everybody would be afraid, so on. And the challenges of
getting hundreds of thousands of people in and out of Salt Lake
City on a continual churning basis with the appropriate
concerns for security were enormous. And the FAA rose to those
challenges and handled them extremely well. And we are very
grateful to you for that.
ST. GEORGE REGIONAL AIRPORT
While I am expressing gratitude, I want to thank you also
for your efforts and concerns with the development of a new
regional airport in St. George. St. George, Utah, is one of the
fastest growing parts of the State. Its growth is hampered only
by the fact that its airport cannot handle jets above a certain
size. And you cannot extend the runway, because it is on the
edge of a cliff. And you are going to have to put a whole new
airport down in the valley, where you have got enough space for
a modern runway.
And we are grateful to the FAA for working with us on that,
which leads me to my suggestion. I understand Senator Campbell
has asked you to come to Colorado, and while you are there, if
you could slip down to St. George and take a look at that, we
would welcome you there and appreciate whatever attention you
could give to that.
Ms. Garvey. It sounds like a wonderful trip.
Senator Bennett. Well, I will warn you that you better do
it sooner rather than later, because St. George gets to 110/115
degrees in the summertime. Its growth is significantly larger
in the wintertime. Somebody refers to St. George as Utah's Palm
Springs.
Ms. Garvey. Yes.
RADAR FOR SALT LAKE CITY
Senator Bennett. And the population grows by tens of
thousands every winter.
Let us go back to the Olympics just very briefly and a
subject that we have discussed before. That is radar coverage
for the Salt Lake Airport, particularly with airplanes coming
from the south. During the Olympics, there was a temporary
radar system installed, and we continue to be anxious to see to
it that becomes somehow, because the growth in the area is only
going to continue. It is a major hub for Delta Airlines. And
with the growth along the Wasatch front, the population of Utah
will double within the next 30 to 40 years.
We understand that ASR-9 radar units are no longer
available and that ASR-11s continue to be hampered by
technology problems, so we have been approached by the
manufacturer of what he hopes will be an ASR-12 and wonder if
we can get in conversations with you and finally get this
somewhat difficult problem resolved. As I say, it worked very
well in the Olympics to have that additional radar down there.
Ms. Garvey. Yes.
Senator Bennett. It was installed as temporary. I told them
to pour as much concrete as they possibly could around it, so
that it could never get taken away, but that is maybe not good
public policy.
I simply raise it with you in the hope that we can have
continuing conversations with your agency about getting that
problem under some control.
Ms. Garvey. We certainly will, Senator. And we will follow
up at the staff level to make sure we continue those
discussions.
Senator Bennett. Thank you again.
Ms. Garvey. Thank you. Thank you very much for your kind
comments.
Senator Bennett. My congratulations are very sincere and
heartfelt, because of my own experience with how difficult a
challenge you really had in these last 5 years.
Ms. Garvey. Thank you. Thanks, Senator.
Senator Murray. Thank you, Senator Bennett.
COMMERCIAL AIRPLANE CERTIFICATION PROCESS
Last month, the FAA released the results of a study that
focused on the commercial airplane certification process. One
of the major findings of this study is that the FAA airlines
and aircraft manufacturers have not adequately communicated
important safety information within and among their
organizations.
What are you doing both in the short term and the long term
to correct that situation?
Ms. Garvey. Senator, that was, I thought, a very good
report, and good steps, both from the FAA and the
manufacturers, to really sit down and say, ``Look, what can we
do better in this particular area?''
Quite honestly, we saw some difficulties within our own
shop. We did not feel our own Certification side of the house
was speaking as much to the Flight Standard, sharing
information in a timely way. So we started there. That is
really our first emphasis.
Nick Sabatini, as the Associate Administrator for
Regulation and Certification (AVR), has done an extraordinary
job. He comes out of Flight Standards. He is very, very close
to John Hickey, who is the head of the Certification shop. They
have worked very well together.
Jim Ballough, the new head of Flight Standards, is working
very closely with John Hickey. Some of those issues that we
have had internally in the past have been dealt with very well.
There are a whole series of recommendations; and currently
both John Hickey and others within the AVR organization are
laying out action plans with the industry to implement the
recommendations. We have had an opportunity to brief the NTSB
and got a pretty positive response.
We will have an action plan that we would like to share
with you in very short order, but the immediate issue was to
deal with our own internal communication.
Senator Murray. That is----
Ms. Garvey. We have made some good, you know, good progress
there.
[The information follows:]
A plan to address the findings and recommendations for improving
communications is being drafted. The plan is in final coordination with
the Government/Industry Oversight Board. We do not have an estimated
date when the Board coordination will be completed. The plan, when
completed, will be provided to the Committee.
Senator Murray. Yes; that has been done.
COMPETITIVE PROCUREMENT
Following up on an issue that was raised by Senator Shelby,
last year, your agency was severely chastised by the court for
trying to sole source the new En Route Automation Modernization
or ERAM program to Lockheed-Martin.
The Raytheon Company succeeded in requiring that the
program be competed. Now, that you have published your
specifications for the competition, Raytheon is taking you to
court, alleging that the specifications are deliberately
drafted so that Lockheed wins the competition.
Are you confident of your ability to award an ERAM contract
this year?
Ms. Garvey. I am confident, Madam Chairman. And
particularly because the two companies are in mediation right
now, as I mentioned. While I do not know the details of them, I
understand that they were very productive discussions last
week. We clearly do not agree with the protest that was filed;
but in any case, if you can resolve the issues through
mediation, you are always better off from any kind of
protracted court dilemma. Those discussions that took place
last week are continuing this week, and I am still very hopeful
that that will result in something that may even move up what
we thought was going to be an award by the summer. There may
even be a way to move that up sooner. So, we are interested in
following the mediation process very carefully.
Senator Murray. Could that lawsuit actually extend the
program out another year?
Ms. Garvey. I think there is always the potential for that.
I am not expecting that, and, again, I think we are on pretty
solid ground. But my first preference would be to see mediation
succeed.
Senator Murray. In the emergency supplemental chapter in
last year's Defense Appropriations Bill, I included $50 million
that you did not request for proof of concept demonstrations on
new aviation security technologies.
Within that amount, not less than $25 million must be for a
demonstration project that incorporates a global satellite-
based communications system and other technologies that are
described in the conference report. I was really disappointed
to learn that none of these funds for this initiative have been
obligated to date.
Can you update me on the status of that initiative?
Ms. Garvey. I can, Senator. We are going to competitive
bidding on this, in part because some other companies have
raised some issues about it. We think we can go to put out a
Request for Proposal (RFP) next month, in early May, and we
have to allow a certain amount of time for people to get the
proposals back. But we would like to be able to make a decision
before I leave in August. And again, I will revisit the time
line today with our folks and make sure that we are all
comfortable that we are moving it as quickly as we possibly
can.
Senator Murray. The conference report that accompanied that
appropriation mandated that these demonstrations leverage
significant industry cost-sharing efforts. It is my
understanding that Boeing is prepared to put up a significant
amount of matching funds for this initiative. Do you know of
any other vendor that is prepared to put up hard cash to match
the $25 million initiative?
Ms. Garvey. I do know that Boeing, as you have indicated,
has suggested a pretty significant amount.
The other proposal that was put forward, I am not sure what
the amount is, but that certainly will be a factor and a part
of the criteria as we move forward.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Murray. Well, Administrator Garvey, you have sat
through another long hearing this morning. It is likely the
last hearing that you will be before this committee. Let me
just, again, thank you for your tremendous service to this
country. You are the longest-serving Administrator in the
agency's history. And I would not want to end this hearing
without thanking you for the tremendous job you have done in
very, very trying circumstances. You have been accessible. Your
integrity is unmatched and your commitment to public service,
really, is admirable. So let me end this hearing by, again,
thanking you for the tremendous job you have done, and to wish
you the very best in your future.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd
senate directive on personnel reform
Question. In the Manager's Report for 2002 Transportation
Appropriations, language was included expressing the Committee's
concern over your agency's failure to implement a labor agreement with
AFSCME. Chairman Murray stated that she expected your agency to
implement the agreement immediately since it was affecting productivity
and morale. Despite the Committee directive, you did not implement the
agreement. Then the conferees on the Transportation Appropriations
Conference Report directed you to report to both the House and Senate
by January 15, 2002 on how you had implemented that agreement or your
plans to implement our earlier directive.
Your response was received by January 15, but was not responsive to
the conferees clear language. Instead of reporting on how you had
implemented the agreement or your plans to implement the agreement you
reported on the status of negotiations. It is my understanding that
since your chief negotiator had signed off on the agreement that
negotiations were over. The only thing left to do is to implement the
agreement. I ask that a copy of your January 15 response be included in
the record.
Answer.
[The letter follows:]
Department of Transportation,
Federal Aviation Administration,
Washington, DC, January 18, 2002.
Hon. Patty Murray,
Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Transportation, Committee on
Appropriations,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Madam Chair: This letter is in response to language contained
in the Conference Report (House Report 107-308) accompanying the final
version of H.R. 2299, the Department of Transportation Fiscal Year 2002
Appropriations Act. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) was
requested to submit to the Appropriations Committees by January 15,
2002, a report on how the agency plans to implement committee report
language contained in Senate Report 107-38 regarding personnel reform.
The Senate report stated the following:
Personnel Reform.--In April 1996, at the request of the Department
of Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration, Congress
directed the FAA to develop its own personnel and compensation systems
to give the agency more flexibility in hiring, training, compensating
and retaining a highly technical and experienced work force. Under
congressional mandate and in consultation with experts in personnel
management, FAA commenced negotiating with its employees. Four employee
groups have completed negotiations with FAA thus far. Three of these
negotiated agreements, two with the National Air Traffic Controllers
Association and one with the Professional Airways Systems Specialists,
were implemented immediately upon ratification by the employees. The
fourth agreement, between the American Federation of State, County, and
Municipal Employees and the FAA, covering employees in FAA's
headquarters, was ratified in late February 2001 but has not been
implemented by the agency. The Committee is concerned that the failure
to implement this contract has resulted in lost opportunities to obtain
important productivity gains and a deterioration in the relationship
between the agency and its employees. The Committee expects the agency
to implement the ratified agreement immediately so that improved
productivity can be achieved and employee morale can be improved.
I would like to take this opportunity to report to the Committees
the status of negotiations between the American Federation of State,
County and Municipal Employees, Council 26 (AFSCME) and the FAA on the
parties' first labor agreement covering four bargaining units in FAA
headquarters.
Negotiations between AFSCME and the FAA began in July of 2000. The
work rules (non-pay issues) were completed rapidly and the parties
began addressing pay issues in September 2000. From the opening session
through the conclusion of discussions with AFSCME, the FAA made clear
that a final agreement would be conditioned on the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) concurrence. OMB declined to concur with the tentative
agreement that was reached in early February of 2001.
Because the condition of OMB concurrence was not met, the FAA's
position is that a final agreement was not reached and that the parties
must return to the bargaining table. AFSCME rejected the FAA's initial
offer to return to the bargaining table. AFSCME's position is that FAA
must execute the tentative agreement.
In March 2001, AFSCME filed an unfair labor practice (ULP) charge
against the FAA with the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA), and
the matter is currently in litigation. Before the hearing on the ULP
commenced, the FAA met with AFSCME representatives and offered to
resolve the dispute based on earlier agreements with other unions. The
parties were ultimately unable to reach a resolution and the parties
participated in an FLRA hearing on the ULP complaint earlier last
month. We remain ready to resume negotiations with assistance from the
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, if necessary.
The FAA has made efforts to settle this dispute. The FAA has
offered, on several occasions, to return to the bargaining table and
resume negotiations. AFSCME has rejected a resumption of negotiations.
I will continue to keep the Committees informed as events warrant.
Identical letters have been sent to Chairwoman Murray, Senator
Shelby, and Chairman Rogers.
Sincerely,
Jane F. Garvey,
Administrator.
Question. I have spoken with AFSCME's leaders and they testified
under oath in an Unfair Labor Practice trial, that they did not
acquiesce or agree to allow OMB to have power over the agreement. I
request that a document from that trial in which OMB clearly states
that FAA had the final authority to implement the agreement, be
included in the record.
Answer. At this time, OMB produced a number of documents relating
to the negotiations. Several of these documents were staff drafts of
correspondence. It is not clear from your request whether these are the
documents to which you are referring, but we have provided them for
your review.
[The draft follows:]
[draft]
Hon. Peter T. King,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C. 20015-3203.
Dear Representative King: Thank you for your letter of June 6,
2001, concerning the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and its
consultations with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regarding
a proposed collective bargaining agreement between the FAA and its
employees.
We appreciate your interest in the matter of the proposed
collective bargaining agreement. As you may be aware, this matter is
presently in litigation before the Federal Labor Relations Authority,
in a case brought against the FAA by the union representing its
employees. In the Matter of: Department of Transportation, Federal
Aviation Administration (Respondent) and American Federation of State,
County & Municipal Employees, Council 26 (Charting Party/Union), Case
WA-CA-01-0386. Due to this pending litigation, and at the
Transportation Department's request, I have forwarded your letter to
Secretary of Transportation Mineta, so that the Department can respond
to you directly about the proposed collective bargaining agreement.
Thank you again for your letter.
Sincerely,
Question. I also request that a letter to Secretary Mineta from
Senator Stevens and myself on this subject be included in the record.
Answer.
[The letter follows:]
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, D.C., October 10, 2001.
Hon. Norman Y. Mineta,
Secretary of Transportation, Department of Transportation,
Washington, DC 20503.
Dear Mr. Secretary: We are writing to express our concern over the
status of the collective bargaining agreement reached between the
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)
and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). It is our understanding
that this contract has yet to be implemented.
In 1995, Congress mandated in the fiscal year 1996 Department of
Transportation Appropriations (Public Law 104-50) that FAA develop a
new personnel system in ``consultation'' with its employees. The FAA
wanted an agency and workforce that was better able to meet the demands
of the 21st Century. The FAA requested total flexibility in personnel
reform so that they could be competitive with private sector
organizations and corporations in compensation and hiring.
Subsequently, Congress directed the FAA to ``bargain'' with the
exclusive bargaining representative of the employees certified under
section 7111 of Title 5, United States Code in the development of the
new personnel system.
It is our understanding that AFSCME and the FAA initiated
bargaining in June of 2000 over the new personnel system pursuant to
the congressional mandates cited above. AFSCME and the FAA came to
agreement in January 2001.
After negotiations were successfully completed, the FAA informed
AFSCME that the Office of Management and Budget recommended that it not
implement the agreement. To date, the FAA negotiated four contracts as
a result of the congressionally mandated personnel reform and the FAA
has implemented three of these contracts. It appears unreasonable to
single-out this one last contract that is neither more nor less
generous than the other contracts. The FAA negotiated and agreed to the
terms of the contract, and the FAA has the independent legal authority
to implement this contract. But, to date, this contract remains
unimplemented and dedicated employees affected by this delay are
understandably demoralized.
Following the catastrophic events on September 11, the Headquarters
employees represented by AFSCME performed with extraordinary
professionalism, dedication and competency during the attacks on our
Nation. In fact, they still staff the Emergency Response Command
Centers set up to respond to the emergency and are continuing to work
on new safety and security measures as well as developing a ``new'' air
traffic control system.
We are seriously concerned about the morale of the employees caught
in this standoff, and we would like to see this matter resolved
expeditiously. We ask for your assistance in bringing closure to this
matter.
Sincerely yours,
Robert C. Byrd,
Chairman, Committee on Appropriations.
Ted Stevens,
Ranking Member, Committee on Appropriations.
Question. In light of the above information, I would like to have
your comments concerning your agency's continuing failure to implement
this binding labor agreement.
Answer. From the opening session through the conclusion of
discussions with AFSCME, the FAA made clear that a final agreement
would be conditioned on the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
concurrence. OMB declined to concur with the tentative agreement that
was reached in early February 2001. Because the condition of OMB
concurrence was not met, the FAA's position is that a final agreement
was not reached and that the parties must return to the bargaining
table. The issue of whether a final agreement was reached is the issue
now before the Administrative Law Judge.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski
airport approaches over montgomery county, md
Question. After September 11, the FAA changed the landing
procedures for planes landing from the north at Ronald Reagan
Washington National Airport (DCA). It is my understanding that all
aircraft approaching the airport from this route are forced to travel
at low altitudes over densely populated areas of Montgomery County. Has
the FAA examined the safety risks associated with this flight path?
Answer. Revised procedures to address security concerns were
implemented in response to the tragic events of September 11, 2001. In
addition, published instrument approach procedures were used on a
regular basis to ensure aircraft maintained a straight and steady
course to the airport. Between March 23, 2002 and April 27, 2002 the
Federal Aviation Administration, working with the Department of
Defense, the Office of Homeland Security, and the United States Secret
Service, continued its efforts to return operations at DCA to the
previously established noise abatement procedures. On April 27, 2002,
after an agreement was reached among all parties, aircraft arrivals and
departures at DCA began operating again under the long-standing noise
abatement procedures that were in effect prior to September 11. These
procedures are for visual flight rules and provide for the aircraft to
fly over either the Potomac or Anacostia Rivers.
The noise abatement procedures for aircraft flying to DCA from the
north are provided when the cloud ceiling is 3,500 feet above ground
level or greater, and the visibility is 3 statute miles or greater.
Otherwise, the aircrafts fly the instrument approach procedures that
were in effect prior to September 11. These procedures provide required
minimum altitudes, below which the airplanes are not to fly, in order
to safely fly to the airport during inclement weather.
noise abatement in montgomery county, md
Question. What is the FAA doing to address noise abatement issues
in Montgomery County?
Answer. In order to address noise abatement issues in Montgomery
County, the FAA on April 27, 2002, re-instituted the long-standing
noise abatement procedures that were in effect for arrivals to and
departures from Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA) that
were in effect prior to September, 11, 2001.
These noise abatement procedures can only be used during good
weather conditions because the pilot must be able to see the ground in
order to stay over the rivers. During inclement weather conditions all
aircraft must follow the instrument approach or departure procedures
that were in place prior to September 11, 2001. The procedures we are
using today are exactly the same as the procedures we followed prior to
September 11, 2001.
primary long-range radars
Question. I understand that the FAA has a mix of more than 100
aging primary long-range radars, utilizing technology that dates back
to the 1950's. Given the FAA's November 2001 decision to retain these
primary long-range radars, what actions have you taken to ensure their
sustainment?
Answer. The FAA is currently performing upgrades to the
infrastructure at long-range radar facilities that will ensure the
continued operation of these facilities. The agency has also initiated,
jointly with the Department of Defense, studies to examine the
operability, reliability, and maintainability of the existing inventory
of long-range, primary radars in the en route environment. These
studies will reveal the nature and extent of any modifications that may
be required.
Question. The FAA maintains more than 125 primary long-range radars
for safe air traffic control and provides the DOD with data from these
radars for Homeland Defense purposes. It's my understanding that while
these radars provide excellent coverage around the perimeter of the
United States, there may be coverage gaps in the interior of the
country.
How does the FAA plan to support the DOD's Homeland Defense
surveillance requirements for non-cooperative aircraft?
Answer. The FAA will continue to provide surveillance information
to the Department of Defense and U.S. Customs Service from existing
assets, as well as establish additional data connections as requested,
in order to support these agencies' need to identify and track non-
cooperative aircraft.
In addition, FAA is participating in the Airspace Management and
Protection Work Group established by the Office of Homeland Security.
This multi-agency workgroup that is currently developing a national
surveillance plan that provides a common airspace picture and enables
the exchange of surveillance data among air surveillance stakeholders.
Question. Does the FAA plan include the deployment of additional
FAA primary long-range radars?
Answer. No. However, the agency is working collaboratively with the
Department of Defense, U.S. Customs Service, and other users to
identify their surveillance needs and assess the viability of
fulfilling their needs with existing FAA assets.
standard terminal automation replacement system (stars)
Question. It has been brought to my attention that the STARS
program has suffered serious setbacks resulting in substantial cost
overruns and delays. Please describe the oversight you are applying to
the current STARS testing.
Answer. The program has met all major milestones since the 1999
restructuring, including the start of operations at our key sites of El
Paso, Texas, and Syracuse, New York, with both our Early Display
Configuration and the initial version of Full STARS. The program is
also on track for the start of operations with the national baseline
version of Full STARS in Philadelphia in November 2002.
There is a significant amount of oversight in place today. The
STARS team provides senior FAA leadership with biweekly updates on all
aspects of the STARS program, including ongoing testing. Since 1999,
the STARS team also briefs the aviation authorization subcommittees in
the House and Senate on a regular basis. Additionally, the Department
of Transportation Inspector General continuously provides oversight and
explaining concerns to the FAA, Congress, and the media.
Question. Have you made any changes to the STARS software delivery
schedule? Please describe these schedule changes.
Answer. No significant changes were made to the schedule since the
STARS program was restructured in 1999, and since the addition of a
modified software version for Philadelphia in 2000.
All software delivery milestones were met and the system is on
track to begin nationwide deployment when we commence operations at
Philadelphia in November 2002.
Question. Have you encountered any testing problems which may
result in future scheduling delays?
Answer. No. Testing of the national software baseline is on track
and going as planned. We don't expect any delays.
In the normal testing process, the team identifies ``program
trouble reports'' (PTRs) which they fix. We are now in the second of
three phases of operational testing of the national software baseline.
The number of PTRs will go up as testing progresses, and will then go
down between each phase as the critical ones are fixed.
Question. Please quantify the cost-overruns associated with the
STARS program as reported by the DOT-IG.
Answer. STARS has a past history of escalating costs, due largely
to human factor changes made in the late 1990s. The original STARS
contract was awarded to Raytheon in 1996 with an estimated cost of
$940.2 million. In 1999, FAA and Raytheon restructured the contract to
deploy STARS in various phases and to address human factor issues. This
increased the cost estimate to $1.4 billion ($273 million for human
factor changes).
The present cost baseline for STARS is $1.33 billion. This takes
the program completely through the development phase and through
replacement of the most ``critical risk-to-service'' facilities.
Although a cost estimate of $1.69 billion exists for the full
production phase (verses the $1.4 billion baseline of 1999), the agency
has not sought approval of that estimate, as it is exploring various
means to reduce out-year costs.
The cost estimate ($1.69 billion) that the DOT-IG used for the
STARS program projects an increase of roughly $285 million. Most of
that amount, $220 million, would be due to increased production and
deployment costs.
The other $65 million is due to increased development costs. The
increase in development costs was primarily due to the creation of an
additional software baseline for national deployment. That baseline
required us to procure additional hardware, contract for additional
work from our prime contractor, and conduct additional development and
testing, while maintaining the approved schedule.
The estimate for the increase in production costs is primarily due
to increased adaptation activities, establishment of deployment teams,
an increase in spares requirements, product warranties, unbudgeted
prime contractor support after initial operations, unbudgeted Early
Display Capability (EDC) to Full Service (FS), and unbudgeted
replacement for Sony display tubes.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Harry Reid
standard terminal automation replacement system (stars) deployment
schedule
Question. Please provide a detailed deployment schedule and cost
estimate for the installation of the entire system, not just through
2004.
Answer. The present cost baseline for STARS is $1.33 billion. This
takes the program completely through the development phase and through
replacement of the most ``critical risk-to-service'' facilities.
Although a cost estimate of $1.69 billion exists for the full
production phase, the agency has not sought approval of that estimate,
as it is exploring various means to reduce out-year costs.
STARS will go operational in the following cities in:
Fiscal year 2003.--Philadelphia, PA; Portland, OR; Miami, FL;
Milwaukee, WI; San Antonio, TX; Raleigh, NC.
Fiscal year 2004.--Tucson, AZ; Kansas City, MO; Nashville, TN;
Roswell, NM; Port Columbus, OH; Moses Lake, WA; Boston, MA; Charlotte,
NC; Rochester, NY; Oklahoma City, OK; Tulsa, OK; Seattle/Tacoma, WA;
Santa Barbara, CA; Dayton, OH; Salt Lake City, UT; Cincinnati, OH;
Buffalo, NY; Indianapolis, IN; Daytona Beach, FL.
Fiscal year 2005.--Little Rock, AK; Norfolk, VA; Pittsburgh, PA;
New Orleans, LA; Orlando, FL; Shreveport, LA; Cedar Rapids, IA;
Pensacola, FL; Houston, TX; Atlantic City, NJ; Grand Rapids, MI;
Portland, ME; Toledo, OH; Pasco, WA; Madison, WI; Jacksonville, FL;
Akron, OH; Wichita, KS; Phoenix, AZ.
Fiscal year 2006.--Lubbock, TX; Harrisburg, PA; Bangor, ME; Austin,
TX; Fort Wayne, IN; Eugene, OR; Lansing, MI; Tampa, FL; Lafayette, LA;
Boise, ID; Savannah, GA; Erie, PA; Lincoln, NE; Burlington, VT; West
Palm Beach, FL; Rome, GA; Flint, MI; Greensboro, NC; Springfield, MO;
Palm Springs, CA; Waco, TX; Rochester, MN; Charleston, SC; Roanoke, VA;
Aspen, CO; Reno, NV; Huntsville, AL; Rockford, IL; Montgomery, AL;
Muskegon, MI; Knoxville, TN; Peoria, IL.
Fiscal year 2007.--Springfield, IL; Baton Rouge, LA; Fayetteville,
NC; Fort Smith, AR; Fort Myers, FL; Colorado Springs, CO; Gulfport, MS;
Billings, MT; Green Bay, WI; Kingsport, TN; Fresno, CA; Columbia, SC;
Greer, SC; Fargo, ND; Abilene, TX; Lexington, KY; Allentown Bethlehem/
Easton, PA; Sioux City, IA; Youngstown, OH; Cape Cod, MA; Charleston,
WV; Augusta, GA; Corpus Christi, TX; Kalamazoo, MI; Elmira, NY;
Saginaw, MI; Great Falls, MT; Mobile, AL; Champaign, IL; Wilkes-Barre,
PA; Spokane, WA; Midland, TX; Wilmington, NC; Hilo, HI; Duluth, MN.
Fiscal year 2008.--Asheville, NC; Casper, WY; Myrtle Beach, SC;
Evansville, IN; Monroe, LA; Florence, SC; Amarillo, TX; Bakersfield,
CA; South Bend, IN; Waterloo, IA; Reading, PA; Jackson, MS; Sioux
Falls, SD; Lake Charles, LA; Huntington, WV; Terre Haute, IN;
Tallahassee, FL; Chattanooga, TN; Louisville, KY; Mansfield, OH;
Binghampton, NY; Moline, IL; Longview, TX; Bismark, ND; Clarksburg, WV;
Meridian, MO.
Fiscal year 2009.--Pueblo Memorial, CO.
Question. Please describe your contingency plan if STARS cannot be
deployed according to the current schedule. What are the costs involved
and what would it take to trigger the plan?
Answer. If STARS were not deployed according to schedule, the
contingency would be to continue operations with the existing
automation system until STARS is deployed to that site. The added cost
to the agency would be an increase in the maintenance costs of the
existing system. Not all of the sites have the same existing system,
however. Some sites have an ``ARTS IIIA'' system, some have an ``ARTS
IIE'' system and some have an ``ARTS IIIE'' system.
The ARTS IIIA sites are the first to be replaced. The last IIIA
site is Tampa, which is scheduled to be replaced in the middle of 2005.
Should the STARS deployment schedule slip prior to Tampa, ARTS IIIA
maintenance would be required for a longer duration than was otherwise
planned. The cost would be directly related to the number of sites
slipped as well as the length of time slipped. Maintaining all of the
ARTS IIIA sites currently costs approximately $5 million a year. This
cost begins to go down in fiscal year 2004, and eventually phases out
as STARS replaces the ARTS IIIA's.
After the ARTS IIIA's are replaced by STARS, the ARTS IIE and ARTS
IIIE sites will be replaced thru 2008 (although a few IIE and IIIE
sites are planned for replacement prior to 2005). If there was a delay
in STARS deployment at this point, additional ARTS IIE and ARTS IIIE
maintenance dollars would be needed. The ARTS IIIE's cost approximately
$5 million a year to maintain. The ARTS IIE's cost approximately $2
million a year to maintain. Again, the total amount needed would be
directly related to the number of sites delayed as well as the length
of time.
In addition to maintenance costs, there would also be the cost to
refurbish old equipment to meet operational needs if STARS is delayed.
The average cost to refurbish old equipment per year is $972,840 for
ARTS IIIA's, $585,420 for ARTS IIE's, and $392,150 for ARTS IIIE's.
Question. According to the IG's office, the FAA never justified its
rejection of Common ARTS as a substitute for STARS, particularly since
it is operational at 140 FAA sites, including six of the busiest
terminal facilities. The IG points out that Common ARTS already
provides the functionality that STARS proposes to provide when it is
deployed. Would you support an independent evaluation of Common ARTS'
and STARS' functionality, cost, and schedule risk?
Answer. The FAA has done several analyses of alternatives to meet
automation requirements, starting with the competition in 1996 when
Raytheon was awarded the STARS contract over the other bidders,
including Lockheed Martin.
Starting in October of 1999, and more recently in March of 2002,
the team conducted economic analyses of the STARS program before senior
FAA management and received approval to continue moving forward with
the program.
Results consistently indicate the economic feasibility of
continuing the STARS program versus pursuing an alternative. There are
also intangible benefits to STARS that are not readily quantifiable,
including higher levels of information security and more data for
controllers (such as latitude and longitude readouts, minimum
separation indicators and additional data block fields).
Common ARTS and STARS are very comparable in terms of what they
provide in the near-term. STARS has features that ARTS does not have,
and vice-versa. However, many of the computer-human interfaces that
were added to STARS in 1999 are not available in Common ARTS,
particularly in their color displays. Additionally, STARS has the
capability to support a more complex national airspace system and to
expand with future growth in traffic.
Despite all of the steps that have been taken, the FAA would
support any additional independent evaluation of this matter.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Herb Kohl
standard terminal automation replacement system (stars) at philadelphia
airport
Question. I am pleased to learn that Philadelphia Airport will
begin operation of the STARS radar system in November 2002. I also
appreciate your efforts to address the radar problems experienced by
Philadelphia in March 2000 and your willingness to work with my office
and the air traffic controllers in Philadelphia to expedite the
installation of the new STARS system. Some concerns have been brought
to my attention that software testing for the new system has
experienced problems and may result in installation delays. I would
appreciate your providing me with an update on the testing currently
underway and whether we can still expect the system to be operational
this November.
Answer. Testing of the national software baseline is on track and
going as planned. We don't expect any delays.
The STARS software for Philadelphia (the national baseline) is
currently in the second of three phases of operational testing at the
FAA Technical Center in New Jersey. After these phases are complete,
on-site testing will begin at El Paso in August and at Philadelphia in
September.
As part of the normal testing process, the team identifies
``program trouble reports'' (PTRs), which they fix. The number of PTRs
will go up as testing progresses, and will then go down in between each
phase as they fix the critical ones.
Philadelphia's success in November depends on the integration of
several factors, including new ASR-11 digital radars, STARS, and the
construction of a new room for controllers. The FAA has been holding
bi-weekly meetings at Philadelphia with all the stakeholders to
integrate these factors, and all are on track for operations to begin
in November 2002.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell
emergency information dissemination
Question. In the hours following the attacks on the Pentagon and
the World Trade Center, it was clear that the lines of communication
between everyone involved in air travel--the FAA, Federal authorities,
airlines, and customers--was severely deficient, if not to say
completely inadequate. What steps have been taken to improve this so
that information moves quickly and accurately from the air traffic
controllers to the airlines to the passengers, and most importantly, to
the appropriate agencies in the event of another emergency?
Answer. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has initiated and
implemented many actions over the last year to improve the lines of
communications for the users of the National Airspace System regarding
airport and flight status information. Many steps have been taken to
provide timely and accurate information to passengers through the
Internet, a CNN Airport Network ticker, CNN Airport Network public
service announcements, and through meetings with airlines and airport
officials. For example, the FAA established a real-time wireless
notification system targeted for travelers on the go. Users can
subscribe to receive delay notification to wireless devices such as
cell phones, Palm Pilot type devices, and pagers at no cost to the
traveling consumer. Additionally, the FAA redesigned the
www.fly.faa.gov website to be more user friendly and, in an effort to
share information with outside organizations, the website has a section
which allows external organizations to automatically retrieve the data.
Some organizations currently using the information include CNN and USA
Today.
The FAA, in concert with the Department of Defense (DOD), NORAD,
and other Federal agencies has in place policies, procedures, and
communications infrastructure to monitor aircraft for suspicious
activity and deviation from authorized flight. Awareness, refinement,
and training on these policies and procedures, since September 11,
2001, are ongoing. A system is in place for interagency, DOD, and law
enforcement information sharing to facilitate each organization's
requirements. Additionally, the FAA is currently working with the
Office of Homeland Security and other agencies to meet interagency
requirements for enhanced ground/ground communications and surveillance
availability. Certain current and planned technologies are considered
Security Sensitive Information (SSI) and are prohibited from
dissemination.
Additionally, the Office of Homeland Security has developed the
Homeland Security Advisory System (HSAS) to improve coordination and
communication among all levels of government and the American public.
The processes and information technology systems to communicate Threat
Conditions and threat information to Federal, State, and local
governments, and the private sector are an integral part of the HSAS.
CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS
Ms. Garvey. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Murray. This hearing is recessed.
[Whereupon, at 12:04 p.m., Tuesday, April 16, the hearings
were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
subject to the call of the Chair.]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2003
----------
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
[Clerk's note.--The following testimonies were received by
the Subcommittee on Transportation and Related Agencies for
inclusion in the record. The submitted materials relate to the
fiscal year 2003 budget request.
The subcommittee requested that public witnesses provide
written testimony because, given the Senate schedule and the
number of subcommittee hearings with Department witnesses,
there was not enough time to schedule hearings for
nondepartmental witnesses.]
Prepared Statement of the American Passenger Rail Coalition
Chairman Murray and Members of the Subcommittee on Transportation
Appropriations, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on
fiscal year 2003 appropriations for the national Amtrak system and to
advance development of high-speed rail in designated corridors around
the country. My name is Harriet Parcells and I am the Executive
Director of the American Passenger Rail Coalition, an association of
the nation's railroad equipment suppliers and rail businesses.
This is a critical time for the Federal Government to provide
strong support for the nation's intercity passenger rail system,
Amtrak. The American Passenger Rail Coalition (APRC) urges Congress to
fully fund Amtrak's budget request to Congress of $1.2 billion in
fiscal year 2003. This is the level of funding that Amtrak needs to
ensure the railroad has sufficient funds to continue operating the
current national passenger system over the next fiscal year. APRC also
asks Congress to continue strong funding in fiscal year 2003 of the
Federal Railroad Administration's high-speed rail R&D programs and
funding to advance development of designated high-speed rail corridors.
The national Amtrak system serves over 500 cities and rural
communities. The rail system provides clean, safe, affordable and
energy-efficient mobility for millions of Americans each year. In
metropolitan corridors, rail offers an efficient, cost-effective
alternative to congested highways and airways. For small cities and
communities, rail is an essential link to other regions of the country
and supports economic development. As we saw in the days and weeks
following the terrorist attacks of September 11, our national intercity
passenger rail system enhances national security. In the days following
the attacks, when service was shut down nationwide, Amtrak trains
continued to roll carrying thousands of individuals and families safely
to their destinations. The trains kept the country mobile and
productive. The attacks highlighted the vulnerability of the U.S.
transportation system's overdependence on a single mode of transport
and the value of providing citizens with mobility choices, including
the choice of intercity passenger trains.
Rail Ridership Remains Strong
Despite a weakened economy and decreased travel and tourism over
the past six months, Amtrak ridership in the first half of the fiscal
year (October 2001-March 2002) rose 1.3 percent over the prior year.
The gains in rail ridership come on top of 5 years of steady rail
ridership and revenue growth. Amtrak ridership rose 19 percent from
1996-2001 and revenues rose 40 percent. The continued upward trend in
rail ridership contrasts with a 17 percent decline in domestic airline
travel from October 2001-February 2002, according to the Air Transport
Association.
Ridership on the high-speed Acela Express and Metroliner services
in the Northeast Corridor between Washington D.C., New York City and
Boston experienced particularly strong growth, up 32 percent in the
October 2001-March 2002 period compared to 1 year ago. Customer demand
for sleeping cars on Amtrak's long distance trains is also strong--
ridership is up 7 percent, ticket revenues up 19 percent in March 2002
vs. March 2001. Ridership on the Cascades service in the Pacific
Northwest rose 5 percent in the first half of the fiscal year compared
to the same period a year ago, continuing a strong trend in ridership
growth since 1993 on this rail corridor. Ridership on the Pacific
Surfliner rose 7 percent and ridership on the Cardinal service through
West Virginia jumped 28 percent.
years of federal underinvestment shortchange passenger rail
Years of Federal Government underinvestment in intercity passenger
rail have shortchanged the nation's intercity passenger rail system.
For decades, the government invested, and continues to invest, billions
of dollars to build and improve highway and airport infrastructure and
technology, but neglected and undercapitalized its intercity passenger
rail system, Amtrak. In fiscal year 2001, Federal funding for highways
was on the order of $33 billion, for aviation, about $13 billion and
for Amtrak, only $521 million (an additional $105 million was provided
separately for life safety improvements in the New York City tunnels
and for security enhancements on the national system). Amtrak is
expected to be operationally self-sufficient, yet competing modes are
not. The Federal Government established trust funds for highways and
aviation to provide a secure stream of funding to meet their capital
and operational needs. Yet, no dedicated funding has been established
for intercity passenger rail despite the compelling logic for doing so.
The U.S. government invests less than 1 percent of transportation
spending each year in intercity passenger rail. Other industrialized
nations have a much more balanced approach to transportation investment
and dedicate significant percentages of their transportation budgets to
improve passenger rail service. Germany and France invest over 20
percent of total transportation capital funding in rail; Great Britain,
17.6 percent.
states are looking for a strong federal partner in rail investments
States are making substantial investments to improve intercity
passenger rail service to assure future economic productivity and
mobility for their regions and their citizens. As with other modes of
transport, however, the States need a Federal partner to share the
investment costs. Since 1993, the States of Washington and Oregon,
along with Amtrak, Burlington Northern and other partners, have
invested nearly $500 million in improvements to the Pacific Northwest
Corridor. The return on the investment has been dramatic: rail
ridership has increased over 300 percent since 1993 and the improved
passenger rail service has diverted over 6.5 million miles of traffic
from regional highways and prevented more than 151 tons of pollutants,
according to Washington State DOT.
Gridlocked freeways throughout the State of California, along with
concerns about the environment and quality of life, have brought a
large commitment by the State to improve intercity passenger rail
service. Since 1990, California has invested $1.6 billion in rail
capital improvements to upgrade track, buy new passenger rail equipment
and for other capital needs. Last year, California spent $63 million to
operate 50 State-supported passenger trains in regions throughout the
State--the San Joaquin Valley, Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area
and Southern California. Rail ridership has responded, growing steadily
with the improvements and increased frequencies.
benefits of passenger rail service to rural communities
The need for intercity passenger rail service in congested
metropolitan corridors is clear to most policymakers. What appears to
be less appreciated is the value intercity passenger rail service
provides to small cities and communities across the country. Yet,
intercity passenger rail service is vital to the economic health of
hundreds of America's rural communities and the mobility of their
citizens. Citizens of rural communities like Rugby and Devil's Lake,
North Dakota and Wolf Point, East Glacier and Whitefish, Montana depend
on Amtrak's Empire Builder train as a safe, essential means of
intercity travel, especially in winter when highway travel can be
precarious or impossible. For residents of these and other rural
communities, air travel is neither a convenient nor affordable travel
option. The long-distance trains are important to the economic health
of rural communities. The trains bring tourists to the region, who come
to fish, hike, ski and enjoy the region in other ways. Their spending
on food, hotels and recreation is essential to the economies of the
States and communities.
rail contributes to other national goals
Travel by trains is energy-efficient, consuming 38 percent less
energy (btu) per passenger mile than travel by commercial airlines.
Transportation is the only sector of the U.S. economy that consumes
much more oil today than it did 20 years ago. U.S. dependence on
imported oil has been rising and since 1997, exceeds 50 percent of our
daily domestic oil consumption. Two-thirds of the petroleum is used in
transportation, mostly to fuel a growing fleet of cars and trucks.
Investments in energy-efficient passenger trains are a sensible way to
help reduce the vulnerability created by the country's growing and
costly reliance on imported oil. Lower energy consumption translates
into benefits to air quality. Investments in intercity passenger rail
help reduce harmful air pollutants and contribute to State and
community efforts to achieve healthy air quality.
At a time when the national security and economic benefits of the
nation's intercity passenger rail system are clear, when States are
appealing to the Federal Government to partner with them on investments
to improve rail service and when rail ridership is rising, it is
senseless that Amtrak is being forced to consider eliminating service
on the majority of its passenger rail network. Yet, the nation's
passenger rail system has reached this critical juncture.
APRC urges Congress to appropriate $1.2 billion for Amtrak in
fiscal year 2003 to ensure that Amtrak is able to continue to operate
the current national system and to appropriate funding for FRA's high-
speed rail R&D program and to advance development of designated high-
speed rail corridors. Investments to improve intercity passenger rail
service and develop high-speed rail in key corridors are wise
investments that yield substantial returns for the nation, States and
communities.
Thank you Chairman Murray and Members of the Subcommittee for the
opportunity to provide this testimony on our nation's intercity
passenger rail system and for the strong support this Subcommittee has
demonstrated for intercity passenger rail over the years.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Public Transportation Association
introduction
The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) appreciates
the opportunity to submit testimony on the fiscal year 2003 Department
of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations bill.
APTA's 1,400 public and private member organizations serve the
public by providing safe, efficient, and economical public
transportation service, and by working to ensure that those services
and products support national energy, environmental, community, and
economic goals. APTA member organizations include transit systems and
commuter railroads; design, construction, and finance firms; product
and service providers; academic institutions; and state associations
and departments of transportation. More than ninety percent of the
people who use public transportation in the U.S. and Canada are served
by APTA member systems.
Public Transportation and TEA 21
During the past five years, increased appropriations for the
federal transit program, authorized under the Transportation Equity Act
for the 21st Century (TEA 21), have been critical in assisting the
public transportation industry address mobility issues around the
country. We appreciate what the legislation, and its annual funding
through the appropriations process, has meant for our industry. Public
transportation ridership is growing, the demand for new transit
projects and extensions continues, and Americans are including public
transportation as an option in planning their daily activities. Freedom
of mobility is critical to the spirit of America, and public
transportation is an important component of that mobility. Therefore,
APTA urges the Subcommittee in its fiscal year 2003 Transportation
Appropriations bill to fund the federal transit program at the full
$8.2 billion level authorized in TEA 21.
public transportation ridership at record levels
More and more people are choosing public transportation every day,
and the numbers speak for themselves. Thanks in part to Congress'
investment in the federal transit program, public transportation is
experiencing a renaissance. Americans used public transportation a
record 9.5 billion times in 2001, and transit ridership has grown 23
percent since 1995, according to preliminary ridership figures. This
represents the highest level in more than 40 years. Over the last six
years, transit use has grown faster than the population (4.5 percent),
highway use (11.8 percent), and domestic air travel (12 percent). In
2000, ridership was up in all modes and in all parts of the country. In
the light rail category, Denver (41 percent), San Jose (34 percent),
and New Jersey Transit (38 percent) experienced tremendous ridership
success. New light rail service in Salt Lake City is exceeding
estimates and was a big success during the recent Olympic Games. The
commuter rail operations in Dallas (39 percent) and in Northern
Virginia (20 percent) have had continued success. Heavy rail ridership
increased by more than 7 percent in New York City, Washington, D.C.,
and Philadelphia, and it rose by nearly 4 percent in Chicago and by
almost 13 percent in San Francisco. Bus ridership was up in large
cities like Washington, D.C. (8.4 percent) and New York City (6.7
percent), as well as in cities across the country like Lexington, KY
(5.7 percent) and Birmingham, AL (5.7 percent). Although the 2001
transit ridership numbers will not be finalized until later in April,
preliminary indications are that, despite the economic downturn,
transit ridership continued its upward climb with 2 percent growth over
2000 levels.
Demand Soaring in all Modes and in all Communities
The consistent, annual ridership growth in public transportation
sends the message loud and clear: people are leaving their cars at home
and using transit to meet their mobility needs. As new systems open
doors and existing systems expand their service, demand is exceeding
the speed at which new service can be funded and implemented. Now more
than ever, growing congestion is causing people to seek alternative
forms of transportation to commute to work, complete errands, make
health care visits, and to get to and from sports and entertainment
events. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that we sustain the
national commitment to an integrated transportation system by
adequately investing in transit.
investment in public transportation shows results
Recent transit ridership increases are a direct result of the
increased annual investment in the federal transit program. TEA 21
authorized $41 billion for public transportation, and guaranteed $36
billion, a significant increase over previous funding levels. This
funding increase benefited transit systems in both urban and rural
areas. In 2002, the rural program is funded at $223.4 million, a 95
percent increase over the 1997 funding of $115 million. This compares
with a 65 percent increase in the overall growth of the federal transit
program over the same period. One of the keys to this growth has been
the transit funding guarantee provision, which has been instrumental in
insuring that transit funding has increased on a consistent, annual
timetable.
The increased transit and highway investments under TEA 21 have
been put to work wisely and expeditiously on an array of transportation
projects and improvements. Nearly 200 new or expanded rail or bus or
rapid transit projects were authorized for 88 areas in more than 40
states. TEA 21 investments have enriched the lives of Americans by
giving them mobility and the freedom to do what they want and need to
do, and created real success stories. To capture some of these success
stories, APTA and the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials jointly published a report on TEA 21, ``Money
at Work.'' We would be pleased to make copies available for the
Subcommittee.
Transit Plays Key Role in National Emergencies
Perhaps one of the best illustrations of the benefits of the
investment in the transit program was the role that transit played
during the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. On September 11,
citizens in New York and Washington relied on public transportation to
evacuate from the urban core. In New York, hundreds of thousands of
citizens were evacuated quickly and without injury. Here in Washington,
the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority proved its value in
running the equivalent of two rush hours back-to-back and moving
thousands of citizens out of harms way. This same story was true all
across the country as transit systems helped evacuate citizens from
shut down airports and center cities. We have published a report in
this regard, ``America Under Threat: Transit Responds to Terrorism,''
that we would be pleased to share with the Subcommittee.
increased public transit infrastructure investment is needed
As noted, Madam Chairman, public transportation delivers
significant benefits and transit ridership is up. Even though highway
and transit investment has increased, transportation experts agree that
our annual capital investments still fail to keep pace with the
increasing needs for public transportation. Transit industry needs,
from all sources, for capital, planning, and research will average $42
billion per year, between fiscal year 2004 through fiscal year 2009,
according to a recent APTA Transit Needs Synthesis Report. The report
summarizes existing needs estimates from APTA, the Federal Transit
Administration, and the Community Transportation Association of
America. While the $42 billion estimate reflects potential investments
in an unconstrained environment, it identifies the demand for new rail
starts, buses and related facilities, rail modernization, core capacity
improvements, preventive maintenance, paratransit, and other needs.
Additional reports addressing transit needs are expected in the
next several months, including the Department of Transportation (DOT)
Conditions and Performance Report, which will detail the investments
needed for maintenance and improvement of the nation's highways and
transit systems. The American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials' (AASHTO) ``Bottom Line'' Report will also
assess both highway and transit needs. APTA has been working with the
Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) to support the efforts of
both DOT and AASHTO.
If current trends continue, over the next 15 years alone, highway
travel is expected to increase by 40 percent and transit use by 60
percent. In order to accommodate such growth, it is critical to
maximize the federal investment in all forms of surface transportation,
including public transportation.
Infrastructure in Critical Need of Repair
Overworked bus and rail fleets paired with rapidly increasing
ridership have taken their toll over the years, and recent assessments
of the nation's infrastructure are disconcerting. The American Society
of Civil Engineers (ASCE) released its 2001 Report Card for America's
Infrastructure last March, and the news for transit was not good in
terms of the state of the transit infrastructure. The report card gave
transit a ``C-'' in 2001, down from its ``C'' in the prior report card
in 1998. The ASCE cited the DOT 1999 Status of the Nation's Highways,
Bridges, and Transit report, in which DOT recommends an annual
investment of $17 billion in order to improve both conditions and
performance of transit. Most importantly, the ASCE urges the full
funding of TEA 21 at its authorized level, $8.2 billion for fiscal year
2003.
In addition, the National League of Cities report entitled ``Six
Critical Threats to Our Cities: Keys to Unlocking America's Future''
lists the areas most in need of attention in order to reinforce
America's prosperity. Among the hazards is the nation's aging
infrastructure, and the NLC calls for the modernization of the
transportation infrastructure in order to build the quality of life
that families and businesses want and expect.
Voters Demanding More Transit
It's no wonder that so many American cities have recently voted to
start or expand light rail, commuter rail, or bus service in their
communities. Just recently, on March 5, in a California statewide
election, voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 42, requiring that
all state gasoline tax revenue be devoted to transportation beginning
in 2008. Under the provision, 20 percent of the gas sales tax funds
will be used for public transportation. Voters have supported recent
transit initiatives in Pierce County, Washington; Salt Lake City, Utah;
Seattle, Washington; Toledo, Ohio; Providence, Rhode Island; King
County, Washington, Houston, Texas, Glendale, Arizona, and in Portage
County, Ohio, among others.
The nation's mayors also recognize the growing demand for public
transit. In February, at a meeting of more than 300 mayors from across
the country, a survey was released that showed that 80 percent of
respondents agreed that the idea of investment in light rail can reduce
congestion by presenting a viable alternative to driving.
administration's budget proposal
Madam Chairman, while we are pleased that the Administration's
fiscal year 2003 Budget proposes to honor the TEA 21 funding guarantees
for public transportation, needs studies indicate a clear and growing
need for investment in transit infrastructure. Thus, we urge you to
fund the fiscal year 2003 program at the highest possible level.
New Freedoms Initiative
The Administration's fiscal year 2003 budget request includes a New
Freedoms Initiative, designed to help Americans with disabilities by
increasing access to employment and daily community life. The program
would include $100 million for grants for alternative methods to
promote access to transportation, and $45 million for a pilot program
to promote innovative transportation solutions for people with
disabilities. While APTA supports the Administration's New Freedoms
Initiative, it recommends that it be financed with TEA 21 fiscal year
2003 funds authorized to be appropriated over the guaranteed amounts.
Federal Match for New Starts
The Bush Administration budget also proposes that, starting in
2004, the federal match under the new fixed guideway and extensions
program be reduced from its current 80 percent to 50 percent. While we
recognize the significant and growing demand for New Start funding and
the interest in allocating it carefully, we are concerned about the
larger transportation policy issue of a level playing field for all
federal surface transportation funds. If highway funds continue to be
available at an 80 percent federal match, and new start transit funds
are available at 50 percent, it would seem that federal policy contains
a built in bias discouraging local decision makers from making
independent transportation decisions strictly on the basis of local
needs, criteria, and the best solution to local transportation
problems. Rather than revising federal shares in an attempt to spread
the resource, we urge Congress to grow the program to accommodate the
clear demand for federal investments in our nation's surface
transportation infrastructure.
Increased Funds are Required to Maintain ADA Compliance Standards
Since the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990,
transit agencies have made significant progress in the effort to ensure
that all forms of public transportation are accessible to people with
disabilities. According to an APTA survey of 300 transit agencies,
there were approximately 25,000 U.S. transit buses in 1993 that were
not wheelchair accessible. In 2000, that number was less than 11,000.
Similarly, commuter rail operators reduced the number of non-accessible
rail cars by more than half over the same time period. However, as the
population ages, the need for demand response and paratransit service
will continue to rise. Public investment for these services and further
on-vehicle lift, ramp, and station improvements must keep pace for
transit to meet mobility demands. In fact, the demand for paratransit
services in particular is growing and the resulting costs are rising
significantly.
As ridership across the nation's small and large communities
continues to flourish, transit agencies struggle financially to meet
the demand for additional service for disabled and elderly passengers.
Such services are already frequently operating at capacity. We applaud
the Administration's recognition--as demonstrated in its New Freedoms
Initiative--that people with disabilities are well served by expanded
mobility.
Job Access and Reverse Commute Program
In addition, APTA reaffirms the Federal Transit Administration's
(FTA) assessment that the Job Access and Reverse Commute Program should
be funded at the fully authorized level of $150 million as provided in
TEA 21. These programs not only get people to jobs otherwise
unavailable to them, but they provide America's employers with access
to the services of thousands of new employees. We commend FTA on its
outreach efforts to date, and urge it to continue efforts to streamline
the program administratively and focus on increased program
coordination at the federal, state, and local levels.
Transit Security & Fiscal Year 2002 Supplemental Request
Madam Chairman, as we conclude our views on the fiscal year 2003
Transportation Appropriations bill, we also want to take this
opportunity to comment on the recent submission by the Administration
of its Emergency fiscal year 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Request.
We mention in our testimony that transit played an important role
during the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington last year. We
should also note that transit agencies across the nation have made
significant investments in security-related capital in recent months.
As the Subcommittee develops a fiscal year 2002 Supplemental
Appropriations bill, we urge you to consider the investments in
security enhancements made by public transportation systems around the
country.
conclusion
Madam Chairman, public transportation ridership is at its highest
point in decades, and transit systems in our largest cities and small
communities are doing their best to keep up with growing demand. We are
pleased with the sharp increases in ridership, but it is taking its
toll, and funds are needed to maintain and upgrade existing systems. We
urge Congress to help lead the ongoing renaissance of public
transportation and to support its many benefits, in communities of all
sizes. Help us get the job done! Public transportation delivers an
enormous return on the federal investment--it can provide freedom of
mobility and a transportation choice for all Americans. We urge the
Subcommittee to fund the fiscal year 2003 federal transit program at
the $8.2 billion authorized level.
APTA appreciates the opportunity to submit testimony on the
development of the fiscal year 2003 Transportation Appropriations Act.
We would be pleased to provide additional information to assist you in
your deliberations.
______
Prepared Statement of Chatham Area Transit
Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to submit a statement
for the Outside Witness Hearing Record. This statement presents
critical needs of CAT for fiscal year 2003. I would like to thank
Senators Max Cleland and Zell Miller for their support of this
statement and CAT's needs for fiscal year 2003.
The request includes $8,000,000 for Bus and Bus Facilities and
Equipment and $1,000,000 for Job Access and Reverse Commute purposes.
The Chatham Area Transit (CAT) request is $8,000,000, comprised of
four components: (1) The purchase of 36 replacement buses, all of which
have between 600,000 and 900,000 miles, far above their designed
service life of 500,000 miles, (2) Operations facility renovations, (3)
Design costs for bus passenger facilities needed in the east and south
sides of Savannah, and (4) Purchase of equipment to support ferry and
trolley operations.
Bus Replacement
The bus replacement component will involve new vehicles that will
be ADA compliant. The vehicles that currently need replacement are not
ADA compliant.
CAT's annual increase in ridership exceeds the national average for
transit ridership growth. CAT is serving a growing community that is
increasingly reliant on public transit for its transportation needs.
The growth in tourists using CAT has also placed new demands on the
system's aging resources.
Facility Renovation
The current facility needs a new roof and replacement concrete pads
in the parking areas. The constant bus traffic and their associated
weight have caused severe damage to the CAT maintenance and
administrative facility.
Ferry and Trolley Operations
CAT has assumed responsibility for trolley and ferry operations in
the CAT service area. Equipment for these two operations will be needed
to serve CAT's ridership and services.
CAT also requests $1 million within the Job Access/Reverse Commute
category. Continuation of this important program will permit CAT to
meet current transit route schedules and transit needs.
Thank you for this opportunity to present CAT's needs for fiscal
year 2003.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Newark, New Jersey
The City of Newark respectfully submits the following for your
consideration:
--The Newark Penn Station Platform Extension and Inter-modal Access
Enhancement Project, for which the City requests 4 million from
the Bus and Bus Facilities program; and
--the Newark-Elizabeth Rail Link, a $60 million request, included in
the Administration's Budget, as a New Starts Rail initiative.
Chairman Murray and members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the
City of Newark, thank you for giving me the opportunity to present
testimony to you on behalf of projects under your jurisdiction which
are very important to the people of Newark, New Jersey and the
surrounding region. The support of this Committee has been critical in
the past, and we wholeheartedly thank you for your aid to projects that
have truly impacted on the people of Newark and our economy. Newark's
transportation infrastructure needs are vital to enabling us to
maintain our position as a regional center for commerce, government and
entertainment.
newark-elizabeth rail link
Newark is a City with vast potential, and there is a renewed
vitality and sense of optimism in Newark. As the physical crossroads of
the Northeast Corridor, the future economic viability of Newark is
inextricably dependent upon the continued modernization and expansion
of our intermodal transportation system. Improvements to our roadway
network, our rail system, and our port and airport facilities directly
translate into jobs and economic prosperity for our City, State and
Region.
The construction of major new facilities, including the 4 year old
New Jersey Performing Arts Center, our 2 year old minor league baseball
stadium, and the Joseph G. Minish Passaic Riverfront Park and Historic
Area--on which the Army Corps of Engineers is ready to begin its second
phase of construction--are all related to the proximity and
effectiveness of our transportation network. The renovation and
repopulation of older office buildings, and construction of new ones,
is occurring in large part due to the ease of access for commuters.
Your help on transportation funding has improved access to not only the
downtown business, arts and entertainment district, but also the
rapidly growing Newark Airport/Port Newark complex. The success of
University Heights, where four institutions of higher learning provide
educational opportunities to over 50,000 commuter students per day, is
also directly related to the ease of access to the highway system.
We are working to further capitalize on the existing transportation
infrastructure by connecting current and proposed facilities with the
Newark Elizabeth Rail Link. The first segment of the Newark Elizabeth
Rail Link (NERL) is now under construction, thanks to your previous
support. The first operable segment of the NERL will provide the
missing link between downtown Newark's two train and bus transportation
nodes. It will be a 0.94 mile connection between the Broad Street
Station, where trains from the western suburbs enter the City, and
Newark Penn Station, on the Northeast corridor line and the central hub
for New Jersey Transit trains and buses. There will be three new
stations on this segment--Broad Street Station, Washington Park/
Riverfront Stadium, and N.J. Performing Arts Center/Center Street--
which connect sites mentioned above, as well as our renowned Newark
Museum and Newark Public Library, that are crucial to Newark's economic
and cultural growth. The line then will enter a portal where it will
connect with the existing City Subway tunnel to access Penn Station,
which I will discuss further in a moment. At full build-out, the NERL
is planned to be an 8.8 mile, fifteen station light rail transit line
linking downtown Newark with Newark International Airport and the City
of Elizabeth.
The NERL is an important and central component of our overall
transportation plan. We are proud that a full funding agreement for
this first operable segment of the Newark Elizabeth Rail Link was
signed last summer, and the Administration has included funding for it
in its budget. I respectfully ask this Committee to add its support for
the $60 Million budget request for this vital connection.
newark penn station platform extension and inter-modal access
enhancement project
A central feature of the downtown/riverfront area is the presence
of AMTRAK facilities at Newark Penn Station. This station is the last
northbound stop on the Northeast Corridor before New York City, and
provides rail and bus linkages to the rest of New Jersey, and the
region beyond. New Jersey Transit is doing an admirable job of
renovating and modernizing the facility to accommodate increases in
demand at the station, but the portion of the overall rail
infrastructure that is owned and operated by AMTRAK is in great need of
attention. The renovation and upgrading of AMTRAK property to better
serve the City of Newark, its residents and visitors is a key factor in
the City's economic development and transportation initiatives.
Newark Sports and Entertainment and the City of Newark are
enthusiastic about continuing the effective federal partnership they
have developed in support of the platform extension project at Penn
Station. These platform extensions will enable passengers to exit the
rail facility without having to navigate through passageways to exit
through the station itself. This improvement will enable the connection
of a pedestrian walkway to a planned economic development project, the
new downtown sports and entertainment complex. With this extension, an
old abandoned railroad bridge will be transformed into a productive
pedestrian corridor, linking passengers to a recently planned inter-
modal transportation facility that will be housed adjacent to the new
sports facility. The project will help to revitalize the southern
portion of Broad Street--which is Newark's main commercial corridor--
just as other transportation projects have facilitated the renaissance
of the upper Broad Street area. The entire cost of the platform
extension at Penn Station is $35 million, and the amount requested for
this appropriation totals $4 million. This project meets all of the
requirements for the Transportation Appropriations bill, and will serve
as a model for other cities in desperate need of urban revitalization.
The assistance of this committee in funding these projects is
vital. The Newark Elizabeth Rail Link and the Penn Station improvements
are critical links in Newark's transportation network, and your support
for them is crucial to our continued economic development. Your
attention and consideration of the needs of Newark, New Jersey are
deeply appreciated, and I thank you in advance for any assistance your
subcommittee may provide.
______
Prepared Statement of the Coalition of Northeastern Governors (CONEG)
As the Subcommittee begins the fiscal year 2003 transportation
appropriations process, the Coalition of Northeastern Governors (CONEG)
is pleased to share with the Subcommittee testimony for the record on
the fiscal year 2003 U.S. Department of Transportation appropriations.
The CONEG Governors commend the Subcommittee for its past support of
funding for the Nation's highway, transit and rail systems. We also
urge the subcommittee to continue the important Federal partnership
role in strengthening the Nation's passenger and freight rail systems
through continued investment in rail safety and capital investment in
intercity passenger rail and other critical projects. Continued Federal
investment in transportation research and development is also an
essential element of public and private efforts to enhance the safety
and capacity of the Nation's transportation system.
An integrated, safe and fully funded national surface
transportation system is a critical underpinning to the productivity of
our economy, the well being of our communities, and the quality of life
of our people. Within this system, the Northeast has unique
transportation needs and challenges. For example, it is the most
densely populated area in the Nation and has the Nation's oldest
transportation infrastructure. In addition, the region's transportation
infrastructure is among the most heavily used, and is exposed to the
largest variation in seasonal changes in the country.
First, the Governors urge the Subcommittee to fund the highway and
transit programs at least at the levels authorized in the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) and, ideally,
to fund the highway program at the fiscal year 2002 funding level. This
level of funding is critical for the Federal-State partnership to
achieve improved conditions, performance and safety of the region's and
the Nation's highways and bridges.
Second, the Governors strongly urge the subcommittee to provide a
level of funding for intercity passenger rail which ensures that safe,
reliable service is provided across the Nation without interruption as
the Congress and Administration address the future of intercity
passenger rail. The need for substantial Federal investment in
intercity passenger rail is independent of the outcome of the current
policy debate on the shape and future of Amtrak. The USDOT Inspector
General has noted that over $1 billion in capital funds is needed
annually just to sustain the current intercity passenger rail system,
regardless of who operates that system. The States are already major
investors in the current intercity passenger rail system, with the
Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States already investing approximately $2.5
billion in intercity passenger rail infrastructure since 1991.
Intercity passenger rail is an indispensable part of our Nation's
transportation system, particularly in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic
region. This has become more clear since the events of September 11
when rail provided a much needed redundancy to the Nation's
transportation system. A degradation or sudden disruption in safe,
reliable intercity service, whether through reduction in essential
maintenance, devastating service cuts, or bankruptcy by Amtrak, would
jeopardize the future opportunity of passenger rail service across the
Nation. In the Northeast, it would add enormous pressures on the
region's already over-burdened highway and airport capacity. The
Federal Government must continue to be a strong consistent funding
partner of intercity passenger rail, just as it has for the other modes
of transportation that promote the efficient movement of people and
goods.
Third, the Governors support efforts to improve the security of our
Nation's transportation infrastructure, including fully funding the
President's request for the newly created Transportation Security
Agency to provide security for the Nation's transportation
infrastructure, particularly the Nation's airports.
Fourth, the Governors urge the Subcommittee to continue funding for
investments in Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS). The densely
populated Atlantic Coast region relies heavily on ITS to improve
operations every day on both highways and transit. However, in the wake
of September 11, the region's ITS systems, including those provided by
TRANSCOM and the I-95 Corridor Coalition, played a critical role in
both the emergency management and recovery phases of the operation.
These organizations, funded through the Federal ITS program, supported
and helped coordinate the movement of convoys of military personnel and
emergency service agencies in the hours immediately following the
event. They also helped support the recovery effort as the
transportation system was systematically brought back on line.
Fifth, safety on the Nation's highways, transit and rail systems
remains a priority of the Governors. We are specifically concerned
about the safety of the aging rail tunnels along the Northeast
Corridor, and urge the Subcommittee to fund life safety improvements
for the Baltimore and New York tunnels. In addition, the Governors
support full funding for the Railway-Highway Crossing Hazard
Elimination Program. As part of the Federal-State partnership to
correct hazardous conditions on the Nation's highways, investments in
highway-rail crossings can reduce injuries and death from accidents
even as they allow higher train speeds and increased reliability.
Sixth, the Governors support the President's funding request of $20
million for the Surface Transportation Board, and urge the Subcommittee
to fund the Federal Railroad Administration at current levels.
Seventh, the Governors support continued Federal investment in
transportation research and development programs, particularly the
Federal Railroad's Next Generation High Speed Rail program. This
program enhances safety and helps stimulate the development of new
technologies which will benefit improved intercity rail service across
the Nation.
The Governors also support funding to ensure that the U.S. Coast
Guard can maintain the readiness of its fleet to carry out ice-breaking
and related maritime safety responsibilities, in addition to its law-
enforcement operations. The Northeast is highly dependent on waterborne
shipments of distillate to meet winter heating oil, diesel fuel, and
other petroleum product needs. Therefore, the Coast Guard's ice-
breaking operations are a critical link when severe winter weather
threatens a complex and fragile delivery system. Without additional
resources, an aging fleet of icebreakers and deferred maintenance place
additional stress on this essential logistics system.
The CONEG Governors thank Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member Sabo and
the entire Subcommittee for the opportunity to present this testimony,
and appreciate your consideration of these requests.
______
Prepared Statement of the Illinois Department of Transportation
Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, we appreciate the
opportunity to submit testimony concerning fiscal year 2003 U.S.
Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) appropriations on behalf of the
Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) to the Senate
Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation and Related Agencies. We
thank Subcommittee Chairwoman Murray and the members of the
Subcommittee for their past support for a strong Federal transportation
program and for taking into consideration Illinois' unique needs. Our
recommendations for overall funding priorities and our requests for
transportation funding for projects of special interest to Illinois are
described below.
highway funding
Illinois has an extensive highway system to serve the diverse needs
for passenger and freight travel within and through the State. There
are over 288,000 lane miles of public highway that carries over 102
million vehicle miles of travel annually. IDOT urges the Subcommittee
to set the fiscal year 2003 obligation limitation for highway and
highway safety programs at the fiscal year 2002 level of $31.8 billion.
Unless action is taken, the fiscal year 2003 $4.4 billion reduction in
Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA) will lead to an obligation
level of $23.2 billion. This would result in a reduction of $8.6
billion in national funding to States for fiscal year 2003 from the
fiscal year 2002 enacted level, a 27 percent drop. Given that the
country is in the midst of an economic recession, it would be
counterproductive to drastically cut highway funding that produces
valuable jobs. We estimate that the drop in Federal highway funding
would result in an employment loss of more than 5,660 direct
construction-related jobs in Illinois. Therefore, Congress needs to
fully restore the $8.6 billion Federal highway funding cut. We believe
this can be accomplished by using a portion of the current balance in
the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund. We also urge that the
restored funds be distributed to the States in the same way highway
funds are currently allocated. We appreciate the support of the
Subcommittee and the full Appropriations Committee for the provision
adopted in the House Budget Resolution to at least offset the fiscal
year 2003 RABA reduction.
IDOT Requests the Following Earmarks For Highway Construction
Projects:
--Stevenson Expressway reconstruction in Chicago.--IDOT requests an
earmark of $30 million to assist in financing the final stage
of the $567 million Stevenson Expressway reconstruction
project. IDOT believes that this earmark is warranted because
of the extraordinary cost of this project and because the
Stevenson Expressway is of national and international
importance in the movement of people and freight. A special
earmark of $30 million from the Discretionary Interstate
Maintenance program or from another discretionary highway
funding category will aid in finishing this costly project.
--Wacker Drive reconstruction in Chicago.--IDOT and the city of
Chicago jointly request an earmark of $39 million to assist in
financing the estimated $210 million cost to reconstruct Wacker
Drive from Michigan Avenue to Randolph Street, located in
downtown Chicago. IDOT and the city believe that this earmark
is warranted because of the extraordinary cost of the project
and because Wacker Drive is critically important to the city's
transportation system. A special earmark of $39 million from
the Discretionary Bridge program or from another discretionary
highway funding category will aid in financing this costly
project.
--Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) projects.--IDOT requests
an fiscal year 2003 earmark of $10 million in ITS Deployment
funds for key projects in the Chicago and other metropolitan
areas in Illinois to enhance system operations and for various
locations around the State for security, commercial vehicle
operations, work zone safety and weather/roadway condition
information. The list of projects is shown in Attachment 1.
IDOT believes that this earmark is warranted because it will
aid in implementing vitally needed projects that enhance the
effectiveness and efficiency of the transportation system and
improve mobility, safety and security for all highway users.
If the Subcommittee again earmarks funds from the National Corridor
Planning and Development (NCPD) and Transportation and Community and
System Preservation programs in fiscal year 2003, IDOT requests funding
for the projects listed below. We suggest that these projects be funded
from the NCPD program but defer to the Subcommittee's judgement:
--US 30 in Will County (Williams Street to Illinois 43).--IDOT
requests an earmark of $2.7 million for engineering and land
acquisition on US 30 from Williams Street in New Lenox to
Illinois 43 (Harlem Avenue). US 30 in this section of central
Will County carries large amounts of traffic and is designated
as a Strategic Regional Arterial. The segment connects the city
of Joliet on the west and existing four-lane pavement on the
east. The US 30 corridor is quickly developing, and the roadway
needs to be expanded. Initial engineering for design and
environmental assessment is currently under way with completion
anticipated in fall 2002.
--US 45 in Lake County (Illinois 137 to Washington Street).--IDOT
requests an earmark of $13.9 million to add lanes on US 45 from
Illinois 137 (Buckley Road) to Washington Street in Grayslake.
US 45 is a major north-south arterial route in central Lake
County that carries large amounts of traffic. The first $6
million of the requested funding would be used for additional
lanes for 1.7 miles to extend four lanes northward from IL 137
to IL 120 (Belvidere Road). The remaining $7.9 million of the
requested funding would be used for additional lanes for 1.5
miles to extend four lanes northward from IL 120 to Washington
Street.
--Fox River Bridge Crossing in Kane County.--IDOT requests an earmark
of $2.5 million for land acquisition for the Stearns Road Fox
River bridge crossing in South Elgin, Kane County. Federal
funding is requested for land acquisition for a proposed Fox
River Bridge Crossing within the Chicago Central and Pacific/
Stearns Road Corridor in South Elgin. Phase I engineering for
design, location and environmental studies is under way for the
project, with completion estimated next fall. The
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21)
provided $9.6 million in High Priority Project funding for the
proposed Fox River bridge crossings; however, the minimum cost
for any of the proposed bridges, including required roadway
work, is at least $60 million.
--Illinois 5 in Rock Island.--IDOT requests an earmark of $5 million
for improvements to Illinois 5 in Rock Island. The requested
Federal funding for improvements on IL 5 from 24th Street to
38th Street in Rock Island will complete the four-laning
improvement on IL 5 through Rock Island and Moline and will
complement the new West Rock River Bridge project.
--Illinois 6 Extension to Chillicothe.--IDOT requests an earmark of
$1.2 million to expand the Illinois 29 corridor study north of
Peoria. Illinois is about to undertake preliminary engineering
on a long-term project to expand IL 29 to four lanes from north
of Chillicothe to I-180. The requested Federal funds will
expand the limits of the corridor study to also include the
extension of IL 6 to connect to the proposed four-lane IL 29
north of Chillicothe.
--Allen Road in Peoria.--IDOT requests an earmark of $2 million to
widen Allen Road in Peoria. Federal funding for this project
will widen Allen Road (old IL 174) to five lanes for one-half
mile from Pioneer Parkway to Townline Road in Peoria. This
widened segment will connect to five-lane roadway both north
and south of the segment.
--US 67 in Schuyler County.--IDOT requests an earmark of $2.5 million
for Phase II Engineering for US 67. The requested Federal
earmark will fund Phase II engineering (preparation of contract
plans) for the improvement of US 67 from north of Rushville to
north of Illinois 101 in Schuyler County. Construction for this
segment of US 67 is estimated at $56 million.
--Illinois 29 from Berry to Edinburg.--IDOT requests an earmark of
$1.2 million for Preliminary Engineering for IL 29 between
Berry and Edinburg, Illinois. Illinois intends to construct a
four-lane highway for 19 miles on Illinois 29 between Rochester
and Taylorville. A new four-lane highway will better handle
traffic and improve safety. The State has committed $40 million
for engineering and construction of 12 miles of the new
highway. The $1.2 million earmark would fund Phase II
engineering to prepare contract plans for the remaining 7-mile
segment.
There will likely be other project earmarks that are requested by
Illinois local governments and IDOT will support them as well.
transit major capital investment
Bus and Bus Facilities
IDOT, the Illinois Public Transportation Association and the
Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) (which oversees the planning
and financing of transit in the six-county northeastern Illinois area)
jointly request an earmark of $28 million in fiscal year 2003 Section
5309 bus capital funds for Illinois. This joint request is a
demonstration of our mutual interest in securing funding for essential
bus capital needs throughout the State. A project list supporting this
statewide request is shown in Attachment 2.
The request will provide $8.2 million for downstate Illinois
transit systems for the purchase of 72 buses and paratransit vehicles
to replace overage vehicles and to comply with Federal mandates under
the Americans with Disabilities Act. All of the vehicles scheduled for
replacement are at or well beyond their design life. The request will
also provide $12.2 million to undertake engineering, land acquisition
or construction for nine support facilities that will enhance efficient
operation of transit services.
In northeastern Illinois, $7.6 million will be used to purchase 64
heavy-duty buses and paratransit vehicles for Pace, RTA's suburban bus
operator.
Illinois transit systems need discretionary bus capital funds since
regular formula funding is inadequate to meet all bus capital needs.
IDOT believes that Illinois' needs justify a much larger amount of
funds than the State has received in recent years. Illinois receives 7
percent of the needs-based urbanized area formula funds but has
received less than 2 percent of bus capital funds over the last several
years. RTA ranks third in the nation in bus passenger trips, yet
Illinois' share of bus capital has been far below shares received by
other States with much less bus transit use.
New Systems and Extensions--Metra Commuter Rail
IDOT supports Metra's (the commuter rail operating agency serving
the six-county northeastern Illinois region) request for an earmark of
$59.7 million in New Starts funding for continued work on three
projects: the North Central Service, the Union Pacific West Line and
the SouthWest Service. These improvements are in areas where
significant population and development increases have already happened
and are projected to continue well into the 21st Century. The projects
will improve and extend commuter rail service which will in turn reduce
highway congestion and contribute to attaining clean air objectives.
Metra received $54.4 million in fiscal year 2002 for the three
projects, and U.S. DOT executed Full Funding Grant Agreements (FFGA) in
November 2001 totaling $319 million in New Starts funds.
New Systems and Extensions--Chicago Transit Authority (CTA)
IDOT supports the CTA's request for an earmark totaling $90.4
million in New Starts funding--$57.6 million to assist in
rehabilitating the Douglas Branch of the Blue Line and $32.8 million to
assist in upgrading the Brown Line. In fiscal year 2002, CTA received
$32.4 million in Federal funds for construction of the Blue Line and $3
million to continue engineering for the Brown Line.
The funding requested for rehabilitating the Douglas Branch of the
Blue Line would continue construction to completely rehabilitate or
replace track, structure and ancillary systems to restore this 6-mile
branch of the Blue Line to an acceptable level of service and to ensure
its viability for the next 30 to 40 years. The CTA is seeking at least
$57.6 million in New Starts funds for fiscal year 2003. A FFGA for $320
million in Federal funds was executed in January 2001 for the project.
The funding requested for upgrading the Brown Line would begin
construction to extend station platforms to handle longer trains that
are needed to serve the increasing demand along this line. Lengthening
all platforms to handle longer, 8-car trains; straightening tight S-
curves that slow operations and selected yard improvements will
increase capacity by 25 to 30 percent. The CTA is seeking at least
$32.8 million in New Starts funds for fiscal year 2003. TEA-21
authorized final design and construction of the Brown Line (Ravenswood)
project, and the fiscal year 2001 U.S. DOT Appropriations bill made
available $565.6 million for FFGAs for this and the Blue Line project
described above. A FFGA for the Brown Line is expected by Summer 2002.
New Systems and Extensions--MetroLink
IDOT supports the Bi-State Development Agency's (the bus and light
rail service operating agency for the St. Louis region) request for an
earmark of $60.45 million in fiscal year 2003 New Starts funding for
extending the MetroLink light rail system in St. Clair County,
Illinois. This funding would extend the line from Southwestern Illinois
College to Scott Air Force Base (as contemplated in the existing FFGA).
This amount includes funds ($450,000) required by the Federal Transit
Administration for Project Management Oversight. The Bi-State
Development Agency expects to execute a $60 million amendment to the
existing FFGA for additional funding for the St. Clair County
extension. The MetroLink system serves the St. Louis region in both
Illinois and Missouri. MetroLink service has been a tremendous success
and ridership has far exceeded projections.
transit formula grants
IDOT urges the Subcommittee to set appropriations for formula
grants programs at the guaranteed levels set in TEA-21. IDOT also
supports using general funds to fund transit programs beyond the TEA-21
guaranteed levels.
Section 5307 Urbanized Area Funds
The Section 5307 formula grants program for urbanized areas
provides vital capital and operating assistance for public
transportation. In Illinois, these formula funds are distributed to 18
urbanized areas which provide approximately 600 million passenger trips
a year. Strong Federal funding support for transit service in urbanized
areas is necessary to enable transit to continue the vital role it
plays in providing urban transportation service.
Section 5311 Rural and Small Urban Formula Funds
The Section 5311 program plays a vital role in meeting mobility
needs in Illinois' small cities and rural areas. Adequate Federal
funding assistance for this program is very important to transit
systems in Illinois. The needs in these areas are growing, yet their
local revenue sources continue to be very limited. In Illinois, such
systems operate in 50 counties and 6 small cities, carrying
approximately 2.75 million passengers annually.
next generation high-speed rail
IDOT urges the Subcommittee to earmark at least $8 million of the
Next Generation High-Speed Rail appropriation for Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) funding to expand a positive train control (PTC)
system in Illinois. The North American Joint Positive Train Control
Project currently under way in Illinois is intended to demonstrate a
PTC system and develop rail industry standards for such control that
could be used by all railroads. It is jointly sponsored and financed by
the American Association of Railroads, FRA and IDOT. The PTC system
installation from Springfield to Dwight, Illinois is nearly complete,
and testing is scheduled for summer 2002 with a goal of FRA approval by
the end of 2002. After completing testing, IDOT intends to extend PTC
from Springfield southward to St. Louis. Illinois is in the process of
utilizing $70 million of State funds for development of high-speed rail
in the Chicago-St. Louis corridor.
IDOT urges an appropriation of $15 million for the Railway-Highway
Crossing Hazard Elimination in High-Speed Rail Corridors program
authorized in TEA-21 and an earmark of $6 million for a rail-highway
grade separation in the Chicago-St. Louis high-speed rail corridor at
Pontoon Road in Granite City. Section 1103(c) of TEA-21 authorized $15
million per year in general funds for this program. The Chicago-St.
Louis corridor is one of the designated corridors under this program,
and the State is working to minimize railway-highway crossing conflicts
as part of efforts to implement high-speed rail service.
IDOT urges the Subcommittee to earmark $2.5 million for upgrading
at-grade warning systems from dual gates to quad gates on public
crossings and to dual gates on private crossings in the Chicago-St.
Louis high-speed rail corridor. Section 1103(c) of TEA-21 sets aside
$5.25 million of Surface Transportation Program funds each year for the
Railway-Highway Crossing Hazard Elimination in High-Speed Rail
Corridors program. The Chicago-St. Louis high-speed rail corridor is
one of the designated corridors. The $2.5 million would cover 50
percent of the department's share of upgrading 54 public at-grade
crossings in the Springfield-St. Louis segment from dual gates, or in
some cases only crossbucks, to quad gates. The funding would also
assist in providing dual gates for 20 private at-grade crossings where
there is no active warning system and would assist in closing crossings
where possible.
amtrak appropriation
IDOT supports Amtrak's request for $1.2 billion in general funds,
the amount that Amtrak estimates will be needed to maintain existing
nationwide operations. IDOT urges Congress to provide funds to continue
current service until it develops a new national rail passenger policy
and a clear plan for any changes to existing services as part of the
congressional reauthorization of Amtrak. Chicago is a hub for Amtrak
intercity service, and Amtrak operates 50 trains throughout Illinois as
part of the nation's passenger rail system, serving approximately 3
million passengers annually. Of the total, Illinois subsidizes 18
State-sponsored trains which provide service in four corridors from
Chicago to Milwaukee, Quincy, St. Louis and Carbondale. Amtrak service
in key travel corridors is an important component of Illinois'
multimodal transportation network and continued Federal capital and
operating support is needed. As noted above, Illinois is in the process
of utilizing $70 million of State funds for development of high-speed
rail in the Chicago-St. Louis Corridor and is looking to use those
funds to leverage Federal and private funds. The North American Joint
Positive Train Control project is under way in the corridor, and
Illinois intends to implement high-speed rail service over a portion of
the corridor in the near future. Illinois also has an additional $20
million for improving passenger service throughout the State through
track and station improvements.
airport improvement program obligation limitation
IDOT supports a fiscal year 2003 Airport Improvement Program (AIP)
obligation limitation at the $3.4 billion authorization level set in
Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century. The AIP
program provides Federal funding support for airport preservation and
improvements needed at general aviation and commercial airports. A
total of 704 million passengers were enplaned at U.S. airports in 2000.
While the events of September 11, 2001 sent shock waves throughout the
aviation industry, passenger enplanements are expected to continue
growing and reach one billion annually within the next decade. U.S. DOT
Inspector General Kenneth Mead recently noted that passenger
enplanements are expected to return to the pre-September 11 levels
within 18 to 24 months. Airports must continue to make improvements to
safely and efficiently serve existing traffic and this rapidly growing
demand. Airports also have to make modifications to terminal areas for
security purposes.
Adequate AIP funding is especially important for general aviation,
reliever, commercial service and small primary airports. While most
primary airports have been able to raise substantial amounts of funding
with Passenger Facility Charges, smaller airports are very dependent on
the Federal AIP program.
This concludes my testimony. I understand the difficulty you face
trying to provide needed increases in transportation funding. However,
an adequate and well-maintained transportation system is critical to
the nation's economic prosperity and future growth. Your ongoing
recognition of that and your support for the nation's transportation
needs are much appreciated. Again, thank you for the opportunity to
discuss Illinois' Federal transportation funding concerns.
Attachment 1.--Illinois Fiscal Year 2003 Intelligent Transportation
Systems Deployment Earmark Request
Illinois requests an earmark of $10 million in fiscal year 2003
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Deployment funds to assist in
funding priority projects listed below. These projects make use of
Intelligent Transportation Systems to enhance the operations,
performance, safety, and security of travel on the Illinois highway
system.
Gateway System Safety and Security Integration--($1.6 million Federal)
Add interface with Public Safety Access Points (PSAPs, the 911 call
processing and emergency services dispatch centers) to create an
integrated transportation and emergency services ``infostructure'' in
Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry and Will counties in northeastern
Illinois. The Illinois Gateway Hub of the Gary-Chicago-Milwaukee (GCM)
ITS Priority Corridor Gateway Traveler Information System is
operational as the collection and distribution hub for the sharing of
real-time video, traffic, congestion, incident, construction and system
condition data. Integration with the 911 centers will significantly
link transportation operators and emergency service agencies to enhance
security. This project also supports completion of the GCM Corridor
fiber optic communications backbone linking critical facilities in
northeastern Illinois and linking the Central Gateway, Illinois
Gateway, Indiana Gateway and Wisconsin Gateway hubs to coordinate
operations and emergency response plans in the major metropolitan
centers of the three-State corridor.
Surveillance Systems at Illinois Major River Crossings--($2.0 million
Federal)
Develop and deploy monitoring, detection, communications and
information systems at critical infrastructure crossings on the
Mississippi, Illinois and other rivers in Illinois. Priority river
crossings serving Interstate highway routes have been identified in
East Saint Louis, Rock Island/Moline, Rockford and other areas.
Surveillance and communication technologies including video and
detection would be deployed as appropriate based on an assessment of
the threat and the security priority of the bridge. The project would
include real-time communications links to Illinois Department of
Transportation (IDOT) District and Central Office facilities and the
GCM Corridor facility. Bridge security systems data would also be
linked to traveler information systems including on-route Variable
Message Signs and other media.
Traffic Management and Control Centers--($2.4 million Federal)
Enhance the operation of traffic management and software systems in
St. Louis Metro East and Peoria, Illinois. Traffic Operations Centers
including surveillance, detection, control and traveler information
systems have been or are being deployed in both metropolitan areas to
improve traffic flow, incident management, emergency response and
system security. These systems will be designed with capability for
statewide integration with the IDOT Operations Center at IDOT
headquarters in Springfield through the Gateway System or similar
software licensed to the department. Additional deployments are
targeted in metropolitan areas where regional and project architectures
are being developed, including Rockford and Quad Cities.
Illinois Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks--($280,000
Federal)
Deploy key components of the Commercial Vehicle Information Systems
and Networks (CVISN) Level 1 system in Illinois. This deployment would
support the new Commercial Vehicle Operations Electronic One-Stop
Shopping Business Plan coordinated by the Illinois Commerce Commission
and the statewide deployment of PrePass electronic screening and Weigh-
in-Motion systems at all weigh and inspection stations on Interstate
highways in Illinois recently completed by IDOT. This project includes
development and deployment of Commercial Vehicle Information Exchange
Window, International Fuel Tax Agreement, International Registration
Plan and electronic screening PrePass Clearinghouse Data Exchange
functionality, and development and deployment of electronic screening
on-line access. These capabilities will enhance documentation,
monitoring and enforcement of commercial vehicle regulations to support
increased safety and security of heavy truck shipments to, from and
through Illinois.
Chicago-Kennedy Expressway Closed Circuit TeleVision System--($570,000
Federal)
Deploy a high resolution Closed Circuit TeleVision (CCTV)
surveillance system along the Kennedy Expressway between the Chicago
Loop and O'Hare International Airport to expand the existing limited
system. Includes expansion of the existing communications
infrastructure to control the Pan-Tilt-Zoom video cameras and to share
video with operating and emergency service agencies for enhanced
security and incident response capabilities along this vital
transportation corridor.
Statewide Weather/Roadway Condition Reporting System--($500,000
Federal)
Deploy the FORETELL/CARS weather and construction information
system statewide. FORETELL/CARS would be integrated through IDOT's
Central Office Bureau of Operations and includes advanced weather
reporting, highway condition and incident reporting systems. FORETELL/
CARS provides an operational highway management and traveler
information system to serve rural and small to mid-sized urbanized
areas throughout Illinois. The project would install video surveillance
cameras at up to six Roadway Weather Information System stations
throughout Illinois. Existing communications would be used to permit
monitoring of the cameras at the IDOT Operations Center in Springfield.
Bridge Control Automation System--Joliet, Illinois--($750,000 Federal)
Automate and consolidate the six localized, motorized bridge
controls in Joliet. Automation provides coordinated bridge operations.
This project includes control modernization, expanded video
surveillance of the bridges, wireless communications for control data
and alarms, remote reporting and traveler information systems for
improved security of these critical links.
Virtual Weigh Station for Commercial Vehicle Enforcement/Security--
($150,000 Federal)
Deploy one virtual weigh station or over-weight vehicle enforcement
commercial vehicle/heavy truck security screening. One high-priority
location would be selected for prototype deployment. Virtual weigh
stations use weigh-in-motion sensors, Automated Vehicle Location,
Computer Aided Dispatch and communications technology to complement
permanent weigh stations on Interstate highways to more effectively
enforce weight restrictions and/or hazardous material regulations by
screening passing vehicles with minimum disruption.
Expand/Upgrade IDOT District 1 Variable Message Signs--($750,000
Federal)
Deploy new and replacement Variable Message Signs (VMS) in Cook,
DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry and Will counties in northeastern Illinois.
The VMS would use current, standards-compliant sign and control
technologies to take advantage of the capabilities of the upgraded
Traffic Systems Center (TSC) traffic management system software. VMS
provide for direct center-to-motorist communications for real-time, en-
route management of expressway operations and enhanced security
response including traffic routing information.
Work Zone Management System--($150,000 Federal)
Acquire portable work zone traffic management systems to include
skid platform(s), tower(s), closed circuit video cameras, portable
Variable Message Sign(s), non-intrusive detector(s), solar power,
communications, data processing and control systems for deployment to
enhance work zone safety at construction projects around Illinois. Use
of the equipment would be scheduled according to planned construction
and would be available for emergency/security deployment as needed.
I-55/Lake Springfield Fixed Anti-Icing System--($850,000 Federal)
Deploy a Fixed Anti-Icing System (FAIS) on the 700-foot long bridge
carrying Interstate 55 over Lake Springfield in Springfield, Illinois.
This project reduces the risk and increases safety associated with the
high volume of trucks carrying hazardous material and the frequent
icing conditions experienced on the bridge. This in turn would reduce
the likelihood of a hazardous material spill into Lake Springfield, the
water supply for nearly 150,000 people in the Springfield area. This
project would provide real-time response to icing conditions through
the use of advanced detector, anti-icing and control technologies.
Attachment 2.--Fiscal Year 2003 Illinois Bus and Bus Facilities
(Section 5309) Earmark Request
Illinois requests an earmark of $28 million in fiscal year 2003
Section 5309 funds for the projects listed below. The Federal funds
would be matched with State or local funds.
Northeastern Illinois Bus Request
Six four heavy-duty transit and paratransit buses for Pace (the
Regional Transportation Authority's operator of bus service in the
Chicago, Illinois suburban region). This request is for $7.6 million in
Federal funds to replace 20 heavy-duty buses and 44 paratransit buses
that have reached or are beyond their useful life. These buses are in
addition to those programmed for replacement with available Federal,
State and local funds.
Downstate Illinois Bus Request
Forty heavy-duty transit and paratransit buses for Bloomington,
Peoria, Madison County, River Valley (Kankakee), Rockford, Rock Island
and Springfield, Illinois. This request is for $6.3 million in Federal
funds to replace 20 heavy-duty transit buses and 20 paratransit buses
that have reached or are beyond their useful life. These buses are in
addition to those programmed for replacement with available Federal,
State and local funds.
Thirty two paratransit buses for nonurban areas. This represents
the combined paratransit vehicle replacement request of the State's 30
nonurban (Section 5311) general public transportation providers. The
request is $1.9 million in Federal funds to replace 32 paratransit
vehicles. Since most of the Federal Section 5311 funds go to operating
assistance, the major source of funding for vehicle purchases is the
discretionary bus capital program.
Downstate Illinois Facility Requests
Bi-State Development Agency, Illinois--Illinois Bus Facility.--This
request is for $3.9 million in Federal funds to begin constructing a
new bus maintenance and storage facility on the same site as Bi-State's
new light-rail maintenance facility in St. Clair County. Bi-State is in
the process of completing the facility design and the estimated cost is
$22 million. The State and local agencies have already committed $4
million for design. Additional discretionary bus capital funds will be
requested in fiscal year 2004 to help fund construction.
Bloomington, Illinois--New Garage.--This request is for $3.6
million in Federal funds for land acquisition, design and construction
of a new administrative/maintenance facility. The Bloomington-Normal
Public Transit System's current facility is in need of replacement.
Previous renovations were done over 12 years ago and in addition, the
transit system has expanded and needs more work space.
Champaign, Illinois--Park and Ride Day Care Center.--This request
is for $1.2 million in Federal funds for design and construction of a
day care center at a Park and Ride location. The Champaign-Urbana Mass
Transit District, in cooperation with the University of Illinois, has
developed a plan to locate a day care center adjacent to the
University's South Research Park. The center would help the University
meet day care needs for employees who park and use public transit to
the central campus. There is no parking available during the day at the
central campus for these employees.
Galesburg, Illinois--New Garage (Phase I).--This request is for
$192,000 in Federal funds for Phase I (design and land acquisition) for
a new administrative/maintenance facility. The city of Galesburg's
public transit system needs a new facility. The city is currently
renting a facility that is very old and too small.
Madison County, Illinois--Facility Renovation.--This request is for
$1.2 million in Federal funds to renovate the Madison County Transit
District's administrative/maintenance facility (Building 1). The
facility was built in 1987 and the interior of the building needs to be
renovated to meet current operating and administrative needs. The
parking lot needs improvement as well.
RIDES, Illinois--Albion Facility.--This request is for $480,000 in
Federal funds to construct a new administrative/maintenance facility in
Albion, IL. The RIDES Mass Transit District (based in Rosiclare, IL)
received fiscal year 2001 discretionary bus capital funding for Phase I
(land acquisition and design) for this project and construction funding
is needed.
River Valley (Kankakee), Illinois--Transfer Center.--This request
is for $560,000 in Federal funds to construct a bus transfer facility
in downtown Kankakee. The River Valley Metro Mass Transit District
received fiscal year 2002 discretionary bus capital funding for Phase I
(design and land acquisition) for this project.
Rock Island, Illinois--Facility Renovation (Phase I).--This request
is for $600,000 in Federal funds for initial renovation of the Rock
Island County Metro Mass Transit District's administrative/maintenance
facility. The facility was built in 1983 and is in poor condition. The
deficiencies were documented in a study undertaken by the district one
year ago.
Springfield, Illinois--Transfer Center Engineering.--This request
is for $480,000 in Federal funds to undertake Phase I (design and land
acquisition) for an intermodal transfer center to serve the Springfield
Mass Transit District. The center would have space for transit buses,
intercity buses and would house the Amtrak station. The current
transfer location is on-street and creates a safety problem for
passengers crossing the street to transfer buses.
______
Prepared Statement of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (MTA)
Chairman Murray and members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), I
appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony in support of Los
Angeles County's surface transportation programs, projects and
services. The MTA's fiscal year 2003 Appropriations funding request is
designed to stimulate the economic growth of Los Angeles County and
address the mobility needs of over nine million people.
The MTA's transportation partnership with the Federal Government
has helped to strengthen this area's economy and move its people and
visitors to work and recreation venues throughout Southern California.
The successes experienced by MTA in recent years stem from a resolute
Board of Directors, the leadership of former CEO Julian Burke and the
productive partnership this agency has enjoyed with the Federal
Government. This shared vision to improve the delivery of
transportation projects and services has served to make Los Angeles
County a clear example of how Federal funding can work. There is a firm
foundation of fiscal responsibility and a dedication to serving the
public that will help to build an even better system for the future.
Another area of focus on this year is establishing greater
cooperation with the municipal operators, including the further
development of a common transit pass. This pass is an interim step to
the implementation of the Universal Fare Card. Additionally, we hope to
secure funding from whatever sources possible for security efforts at
our transportation facilities in Los Angeles County. It should be noted
that we have also identified the need for $24 million in security
funding and enhancements for the MTA and the municipal operators. We
hope to have access to any Federal funding for transit security measure
which may become available either through Transportation Appropriations
or other congressional efforts.
mta's fiscal year 2003 appropriations request
Specifically, the MTA's fiscal year 2003 Appropriations request is
as follows:
$40.5 million in Section 5309 New Starts Funding.--To complete the
Federal Government's funding commitment to the Metro Rail North
Hollywood Extension. Under the North Hollywood Full Funding Grant
Agreement this is the last Federal installment of Federal funds for the
project. This project opened in June 2000 on budget and ahead of
schedule, and has exceeded its ridership projections with 147,775
weekday boardings on this line, the project is a true success story
that demonstrates the strong working relationship between the MTA and
the Federal Government.
$35 million in Section 5309 New Starts Funding.--For use on the
Eastside light rail transit project. This project, which replaces the
subway project originally planned under the MOS-3 FFGA, will bring long
awaited transit improvements to the East Los Angeles communities. This
funding will be used for the final design of the tunnel for the
project, land acquisition, and to enter into a design and construction
contract for the project.
$4.5 million in Section 5309 New Starts Funding.--For preliminary
engineering on the Exposition Boulevard light rail transit project from
downtown Los Angeles to the Mid-city area and eventually onto the city
of Santa Monica. MTA has approved moving this project into preliminary
engineering. The Mid-City/Exposition LRT Project is a passenger rail
project running 6 miles with 10 stations from Downtown Los Angeles
through Culver City and the City of Los Angeles.
$11.5 million for MTA and $15 million for the Los Angeles Municipal
Transportation Operators Coalition in Section 5309 Bus and Bus-Related
Discretionary Funding.--To assist the MTA in expanding its Metro Rapid
Bus Program into communities throughout Los Angeles County and help the
Municipal Operators in Los Angeles County expand and enhance their
services. The MTA's Metro Rapid Bus Program, which carries 48,415
people per weekday, utilizes advanced technology to provide more
efficient bus services, including limited stops, electronic message
signs at stops and street signalization. This program is popular with
transit riders and serves as an example for transit properties around
the Nation. The MTA is requesting that $5 million be appropriated for
Metro Rapid Buses and $6.5 million be appropriated for Metro Bus
divisions, facility improvements to support the service sector efforts
and to enhance the Bus Signal Priority system. The Municipal Operators
set a figure of $15 million for capital bus needs this year. The MTA
supports that request.
$5 million in Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Funding.--
For the further development of the ``smart card'' fare system in Los
Angeles County. This universal fare system will be used to create
``seamless'' transit services throughout the Southern California
Region.
$2 million in Reverse Commute/Jobs Access Program Funding.--As a
member of the Los Angeles County's Transportation and Human Services
Executive Council, the MTA funding request will help implement a
focused ridesharing matching program for employed Welfare-to-Work
participants.
progress through partnership
In the last few years the MTA has refined its mission through a
series of important Board decisions. These decisions have resulted in
the selection of cost-effective and publicly supported projects in
corridors previously slated for expensive heavy rail projects. The
Board has also placed as high priorities the procurement of new, clean
fuel buses and the development of greater efficiency in bus service.
This past summer the Board adopted a long-range transportation plan to
address the current and future growth in the region. We believe the
MTA's progress has been significant, and reflects the agency's ongoing
efforts with the Federal Government and other funding partners to
provide safe and efficient transportation services to Los Angeles
County residents. The MTA and its transportation partners in Los
Angeles County have 1.7 million boardings a day. That is equivalent or
greater than the population of most cities in the United States. We
have come a long way in meeting the needs of this region, but we also
have a great deal more to do.
Metro Rail
Most noteworthy during the last two years is the completion of the
North Hollywood segment of the Metro Rail Red Line. It is my
understanding that many in the country, and perhaps in the Federal
Government, were unsure of the efficacy of this project. This segment
of the rail system, however, was completed six months ahead of schedule
and on budget. The opening of that portion of the Red Line resulted in
a doubling of the ridership on the subway line of the rail system,
which now has an estimated 147,775 weekday boardings. Federal funding
has also played a part in advancing the next critical element of the
MTA's rail system--the Eastside light rail transit project.
Bus Fleet
It is my understanding that four years ago MTA had one of the
oldest fleets in the nation. Many of the MTA vehicles were far past the
average bus retirement age of 12 years. Today I can share that the
average age of the MTA fleet is under 8 years and nearly half of the
fleet, over 1,000 buses, are CNG clean fuel vehicles. The accelerated
procurement plan implemented by the agency three years ago resulted in
safer, cleaner buses, increased on time pull outs, fewer breakdowns,
and staying on schedule to our waiting passengers. This workhorse of
our transit system carries over 1.2 million boardings a day.
Metro Rapid Bus Service
Another achievement during the last few years was the successful
demonstration of the Metro Rapid Bus in two corridors in the County. It
is one of my priorities to expand this successful service as quickly as
possible throughout the County. This program, which incorporates
elements such as fewer stops (similar to a light rail line), signal
synchronization and signal pre-emption, low floor vehicles for faster
boarding, frequent buses and information technology at bus stops, is
incredibly popular in Los Angeles. The two corridors of the program
have seen a 25-28 percent increase in transit usage, with one-third of
those boardings coming from new bus riders. The MTA Board has voted to
expand the program to 21 new corridors throughout the county. This bus
rapid transit network, coupled with the current bus and rail system,
will greatly enhance access to and acceptance of transit services for
Los Angeles residents.
conclusion
The MTA appreciates the consistent support of the Subcommittee on
Transportation for projects and services in Los Angeles County. The MTA
respectfully submits this fiscal year 2003 Appropriations request as a
means to help this agency continue to improve mobility and air quality,
and encourage job development and economic growth in the one of the
most densely populated and congested regions in the United States.
As the MTA continues to make significant and sustainable
improvements to its delivery of transportation services, projects and
programs, we look forward to continuing our funding partnership with
the Federal Government. This partnership assists our efforts to provide
for the safe and efficient movement of goods and people in the Los
Angeles basin. We believe that funding for Los Angeles County
transportation is a sound investment for Los Angeles, California and
the Nation.
Thank you for this opportunity to share our successes and fiscal
year 2003 transportation funding requests with the Subcommittee.
______
Prepared Statement of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority
(MARTA)
introduction and executive summary
Atlanta is the one of the fastest growing metropolitan areas in the
nation, and has played a key role in the economic vitality of the
Southeast. Metro Atlanta, however, is now confronted by serious traffic
congestion and air pollution problems, which threaten both the quality
of life and economic health of the region. In order to provide improved
transit service to this expanding region, the Metropolitan Atlanta
Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) is requesting Federal appropriations
for three major capital projects in fiscal year 2003. These projects
consist of the North Line heavy rail extension to North Springs,
including the purchase of additional rail cars; the acquisition of
clean fuel buses; and the Hamilton Clean Fuels Bus Facility.
MARTA respectfully requests the United States Senate Committee on
Appropriations to designate $16,363,780 in fiscal year 2003 FTA Section
5309 New Starts funds for the North Line Extension Project, including
the purchase of associated rail cars. This project was authorized in
TEA-21 and is the subject of a Full Funding Grant Agreement between the
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and MARTA. The requested funds
will be utilized to partially fund the acquisition of new rail cars
needed to serve this extension.
Additionally, MARTA has significant capital funding needs in
support of our Bus and Bus Facilities program. As part of an effort to
improve air quality in the Atlanta non-attainment area, MARTA is
committed to the use of clean-fuel vehicles. To further this
commitment, we respectfully request the Committee on Appropriations to
allocate $17,600,000 in fiscal year 2003 FTA Section 5309 Bus and Bus
Facilities funds for the purchase of 41 clean-fuel buses and the
development of the Hamilton Clean Fuels Bus Operations & Maintenance
Facility.
The background, rationale and justification supporting these
requests are set forth in the following pages.
new starts and extensions project request
The North Line Extension Project consists of the development of a
two-mile, two-station extension of the MARTA heavy rail system to North
Springs and the acquisition of 56 new rail cars. This project is
authorized in Section 3030 (a)(3) of the Transportation Equity Act for
the 21st Century, and has been implemented pursuant to a Full Funding
Grant Agreement with FTA.
The North Line Extension--including the new Sandy Springs and North
Springs stations--opened for revenue service as scheduled on December
16, 2000. The construction phase of this project is complete. The major
remaining component of the project is the production, delivery, testing
and acceptance of the new rail cars.
The original scope of the project included the purchase of 28 rapid
rail cars. In late 1996, MARTA's reevaluation of expanded customer
service demands and estimated patronage growth in this rapidly
developing area resulted in a decision to increase the number of rail
cars to be acquired to support this extension. Due to the projected
increase in ridership and service requirements following the opening of
the North Line Extension, the planned rail car requirement was
increased from 28 to 56 passenger vehicles, a net increase of 28 cars.
This project scope change was authorized in Section 3030 (d)(2) of TEA-
21. FTA has approved the MARTA Rail Fleet Management Plan, which
provides a detailed justification for these 28 additional vehicles. The
new rail cars will allow MARTA to run longer trains to accommodate the
additional passenger loads.
The 56 passenger vehicles that are associated with the North Line
Extension are being acquired under a major contract that will procure a
total of 100 rail cars. MARTA awarded this contract (CQ 312) to Breda
Costruzioni Ferroviarie (``Breda''), a major Italian rail car
manufacturer, in February 1998. The final assembly and testing of these
new cars is taking place in Tucker, Georgia at an existing 120,000
square foot light industrial facility that has been leased and modified
by Breda.
These new stainless-steel rail cars include a number of features to
enhance customer convenience and safety, including ADA-compliant
between car barriers, digital scrolling interior signs, a sporty new
blue interior, with a more comfortable configuration for both seated
passengers as well as standees. These state-of-the art rail vehicles
also employ an alternating current (AC) propulsion system that will
provide greater reliability and be easier to maintain.
As of March 15, 2002, MARTA has accepted delivery of 36 of the new
rail cars, which have been placed into revenue service and well
received by our passengers. The status of the remaining 20 federally
funded rail cars is as follows: Six of the 20 cars are in pre-revenue
testing, with the remaining 14 cars undergoing final production at the
Tucker facility. The current schedule calls for the 56th rail vehicle
to be delivered and accepted for revenue service in August 2002.
Appropriations requested for fiscal year 2003 in the amount of
$16.4 million will be utilized to reimburse MARTA for the cost incurred
to purchase the ten remaining rail cars included in the scope of this
project.
Financial Status
The Full Funding Grant Agreement reflects a total (multi-year)
Federal contribution of $370,543,000 for the North Line Extension
project. This funding level represents 80 percent of the total project
cost of $463,179,000. Of the total proposed Federal share, $354,343,058
has been secured to date either through previous Congressional
appropriations or FTA reobligations to the Project. This leaves a
remaining Federal share of $16,200,142 needed to complete this project.
In anticipation of the one percent FTA deduction for Project Management
Oversight (PMO), MARTA is requesting the slightly higher amount of
$16,363,780.
marta bus and bus facilities project requests
The Committee is respectfully requested to appropriate $17.6
million in fiscal year 2003 funds, including $10 million for the
purchase of 41 clean fuel buses and $7.6 million for the Hamilton Clean
Fuels Bus Facility. These projects are described in greater detail
below.
Acquisition of Clean Fuel Buses
Due to the serious air quality problems in the Atlanta region,
MARTA has embarked upon a program to convert our bus fleet to clean
fuel operation by fiscal year 2007. Through the combined assistance of
the Congress, the FTA and the State of Georgia, MARTA acquired 118
compressed natural gas (CNG) fueled buses in 1996. Recently, MARTA
received delivery of our second order of CNG buses, consisting of 206
low floor models manufactured by New Flyer Industries. Our clean fuel
CNG bus fleet now includes a total of 324 vehicles, the 2nd largest CNG
fleet in the nation.
For fiscal year 2003, MARTA is requesting a federal share of
$10,000,000 for the purchase of 41 clean fuel buses to replace aging
non-clean fuel buses that will have exceeded their recommended useful
life.
In 2001, MARTA placed an order for 140 clean fuel buses--including
130 fueled with CNG--with Orion Bus Industries. The first set of 70
buses under this order are due for delivery in late Spring 2002, with
the second group of 70 buses targeted for revenue service by February
2003. To date, federal funding has been secured for 119 of the Orion
buses on order, leaving a balance of 21 buses targeted for funding
through fiscal year 2003 appropriations. This summer, MARTA plans on
awarding our next procurement contract that would call for the delivery
of 65 clean fuel buses in 2004, to replace buses that were acquired in
1991/92. Our fiscal year 2003 appropriations request includes funding
for 20 of these buses.
The buses to be acquired will be a mix of 35-ft. and 40-ft. low-
floor models designed to meet specific local service, community and
operational requirements. Low-floor buses are wheelchair accessible,
allow for easy and convenient boarding by all passengers, and are
economical to operate.
All buses being replaced will exceed the minimum FTA replacement
criteria of 12 years or 500,000 miles of accumulated service. The new
buses will fully meet or exceed the requirements of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), as well as, the Clean Air Act Amendments
(CAAA). Currently, 46 percent of the 703 buses in the fleet operate on
clean fuels, and there is an obvious need to convert the remaining 379
buses to clean-engine, low emission operation as soon as feasible.
MARTA is committed to provide bus service that is fully accessible
to persons with disabilities. With the final acceptance of the buses in
the recent New Flyer order, the Authority's fixed route bus fleet is
now 100 percent ADA accessible.
MARTA is also acquiring low emission clean diesel buses in order to
provide emergency-response capability, in the event needed, to respond
to natural disasters throughout the State of Georgia. Because CNG re-
fueling capability is limited in other parts of our state, a complement
of clean diesel buses will enable MARTA to respond to such emergency
public transportation needs, as needed, in a timely and effective
manner. The clean diesel buses will incorporate the latest low emission
technology, and will meet or exceed EPA emissions requirements.
MARTA is also engaged in a strong partnership with the State of
Georgia in terms of receiving matching funds to support our bus
replacement program. Over the past two years, the Georgia Legislature,
with the support of the Governor and the Georgia Department of
Transportation, has allocated over $4 million in State general funds to
be applied to the non-federal matching share for the purchase of MARTA
clean fuel buses.
Bus Facilities Program
MARTA is investing in the capital infrastructure necessary to
support clean fuel bus operations. In 1996, a CNG Bus Maintenance and
Fueling facility was constructed at Perry Boulevard with local MARTA
funds prior to the Olympic Games. The major conversion of our Laredo
bus operating and maintenance facility serving DeKalb County to support
CNG operation was completed in March 2001. At present, two of our three
bus operating facilities are able to support CNG operations. There
remains, however, a critical need to provide clean fuel bus
infrastructure in the southern portion of the MARTA service area.
The need to provide clean fuel bus capacity on Atlanta's southside
has resulted in plans for the retrofit and expansion of MARTA's
Hamilton Bus Operating & Maintenance Facility in southeast Atlanta. Due
to the unique characteristics of CNG, various capital improvements must
first be made to enable the safe operation and maintenance of CNG buses
at the Hamilton site. These planned improvements include the
construction of a CNG compressor station and refueling/service
facility, the renovation or construction of the bus wash facility, new
ventilation and heating systems in the maintenance bay areas, a CNG gas
detection system, and partial modifications to the ceiling lights and
electric conduit.
The currently estimated cost for this Phase, including design and
project management costs, is approximately $19 million, based on our
experience with the recent Laredo Garage conversion project. It is
likely that this estimate will undergo refinement as design progresses
on this project. MARTA is requesting the Senate Committee on
Appropriations to allocate $7,600,000 in fiscal year 2003 Federal
Transit Section 5309 funds to assist in financing these CNG-related
capital improvements.
The capacity of the existing Hamilton facility is now limited to
approximately 200 buses. Should additional funding be identified, there
are conceptual plans to increase the capacity of the facility to
accommodate up to 250 buses, as well as to improve the flow of buses
into and out of this facility. There is also the potential for shared
use of this facility, once it is modernized and expanded, for broader
regional transit purposes and by other CNG vehicle operators.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Association of Railroad Passengers
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement. We support
the Amtrak request for $1.2 billion. We also support efforts to make
the Federal Government a true funding partner with states to permit
development of high speed rail corridors, for which many states already
have well-advanced plans. Attached is a copy of my letter to Federal
Railroad Administrator Allan Rutter, commenting on his written
statement to the House appropriations subcommittee, which was virtually
identical to his statement to you. I ask that this letter also be
included as a part of the record.
We believe that the nation's existing intercity passenger rail
network is ``skeletal,'' that it should be preserved and improved in
its entirety, and expanded when possible. The message from the
traveling public supports this view.
Current Ridership
February was the sixth straight month in which the percentage
change in travel from a year ago was sharply stronger on Amtrak than on
the airlines. In spite of rising fares on Amtrak and heavy airline
discounting, passenger-miles rose 8.6 percent at Amtrak but fell 10.3
percent for domestic airline service. (A passenger-mile is one
passenger traveling one mile.) Amtrak ticket revenues rose 17.0
percent.
Amtrak's strong performance was not confined to the Northeast
Corridor. For example, sleeping cars nationwide outperformed the
overall system: passenger-miles up 13.5 percent; ticket revenues up
18.0 percent. Overall, 10 of Amtrak's 19 long-distance trains posted
double-digit ticket revenue gains, and the single train which posted a
decline is on a passenger-unfriendly schedule which will be
significantly improved in the April 29 timetable.
As the attached graph indicates, for six straight months--September
through February--Amtrak has significantly outpaced domestic air travel
in terms of percentage change from one year ago. Many of the smaller
communities served by Amtrak's long-distance trains have born the brunt
of airline service reductions.
Obviously, air travel remains vastly greater in absolute volume.
However, the general public--and many elected officials--increasingly
realizes that our transportation system and our economy would be far
less vulnerable if our passenger rail network was more completely
developed.
Ridership History
Amtrak's historical ridership data understate the growth of true
intercity ridership, particularly when 1979 is used as the base year.
That year is misleading as a baseline because that was when the
gasoline availability crisis artificially and dramatically increased
Amtrak travel. Passenger-miles rose 22 percent to a level not achieved
again until 1986. Ridership rose 13 percent to a level not achieved
again until 1988. Also, since Amtrak's early years a number of daily
commuters in the Northeast have been deliberately diverted from Amtrak
trains to regional commuter trains, and a Chicago-Indiana commuter
train Amtrak inherited from Penn Central was discontinued. The Amtrak
Reform Council has used 1979 as a base year without explaining any of
the above caveats.
Subsidies and Costs
Amtrak's $1.1 billion operating loss in fiscal year 2001 includes
depreciation on right-of-way property mostly, but not entirely, in the
Northeast Corridor. In Fiscal 2001, this rose by $54.9 million (or 28
percent)--from $196 million in fiscal year 2000 to $251 million and now
represents about 23 percent of the entire operating loss. The increase
in right-of-way depreciation in fiscal year 2001 equals 43 percent of
the total $129 million increase in the operating loss. No airline or
bus company carries equivalent right-of-way costs on its books. This
may or may not argue for someone other than Amtrak owning the Northeast
Corridor, but anyone analyzing Amtrak's finances needs to be aware of
this.
The claim is frequently made that other modes pay for themselves
through trust funds. We believe the biggest ``subsidy'' in
transportation is the mode-specific Federal approach to trust funds. By
recognizing all air ticket taxes, and most gasoline taxes, as ``votes''
for more investment in aviation and highways, respectively, and by
providing generous Federal matches for air and road projects and none
for intercity passenger rail projects, the Federal Government insures a
strong state investment bias against passenger rail. The fact that some
states--including yours--have made significant investments absent
meaningful Federal matches is testimony to the popularity of rail, and
the broad realization even before September 11 that the rail choice is
important to travelers today and will be even more important in the
future. That future importance will become more obvious with continuing
growth in both the cost of--and logistical obstacles to--building new
highways and airports.
Economic Performance
The oft-quoted measure, ``subsidy per passenger,'' does not measure
economic efficiency on an intercity network in which different
passengers make trips of widely differing lengths. The better measure
would be operating ratio (i.e., costs divided by revenues) or perhaps
subsidy per passenger-MILE. CHECK AMTRAK IG'S REPORT.
For example, the Southwest Chief, which links Chicago and Los
Angeles via Kansas City, Albuquerque and Flagstaff, is the fastest
Chicago-West Coast train. According to the table at page 96 of the ARC
report, this train in fiscal year 2001 had the fourth best operating
ratio among long-distance trains (behind Auto Train, Silver Meteor, and
Empire Builder) but one of the highest subsidies per passenger, because
it has a relatively small number of passengers traveling very long
distances. (One quarter of the Chief's ticket is generated by just two
city-pairs: Chicago-Los Angeles and Chicago-Fullerton.) Indeed, at
Amtrak, subsidy per passenger corresponds more with average trip length
than with economic performance.
The Association stands ready to do our best to provide any further
information the committee may need.
Thank you for considering our views.
National Association of Railroad Passengers,
Washington, DC, March 13, 2002.
The Honorable Allan Rutter,
Federal Railroad Administrator.
Dear Allan: An impressive amount of work went into your written
statement for House Appropriations, but in a number of ways--by errors
of omission and commission--the statement seemed to undermine the case
for a national passenger rail network, or even any Federal funding for
intercity passenger rail. I wanted you to be aware of how this came
across to me and probably other rail passenger supporters who read your
statement.
You acknowledge that ``as demonstrated in the aftermath of
September 11th, a strong argument can be made for flexibility and
redundancy in this Nation's passenger transportation system that could
be provided by intercity passenger rail'' (page 2). But, except for a
backhanded reference on page 13, the statement is silent on the message
the traveling public has been sending ever since about the desire for
more rail travel--Amtrak's September-January travel percentage changes
far stronger than the airlines', with January Amtrak travel up 5
percent (sleeping cars up 10 percent) and the airlines' down 13
percent. The table below understates the shift: the airline decline is
in spite of massive fare discounting and Amtrak's growth is in spite of
aggressive fare policies.
YEAR-TO-YEAR CHANGE IN PASSENGER-MILES HANDLED--AMTRAK AND DOMESTIC AVIATION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
September October November December January
(percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amtrak.......................... +0.2 -2.2 +0.9 +3.8 +5.0
Domestic Aviation............... -32.5 -21.1 -17.7 -13.2 -12.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
``Together these actions will reduce the quality of Amtrak service
in 2002 and succeeding years. Amtrak's management is to be commended
for taking these steps on its own to conserve its cash resources,
rather than asking for supplemental funding from Congress'' (page 2).
That is an interesting, and sad, sequence--praising Amtrak for reducing
its service quality in the face of public demand for more and better
rail service. The public increasingly has trouble reconciling the quick
$5 billion aid package for the airlines while Amtrak is left to ``twist
in the wind.''
[The only reason NARP did not urge Amtrak to seek and Congress to
approve a supplemental is our belief that--in large part because of the
Administration's position--this effort would not succeed. Had Amtrak
delayed ``these steps'' only to learn later that no supplemental would
be forthcoming, the task of making it through the year likely would
have changed from difficult to impossible.]
``. . . Some important metropolitan areas (i.e. . . Phoenix. . .)
lack Amtrak service entirely'' (page 3). Amtrak recently began service
to Maricopa (near Phoenix) and ridership has grown quickly.
``. . . Only 25 to 30 of Amtrak's stations would be regarded as
realistic transfer points between intersecting routes, while 136
airports are classified as hubs and Greyhound claims 150 major
terminals. . . If a prospective traveler can't get there from here' by
a particular mode, that mode simply can't compete for his or her
business'' (page 4). These comments, and the absence of any mention of
Amtrak's Thruway bus connections, seem odd coming from a Department
which in many other contexts vigorously promotes ``intermodality.''
Your subliminal message seems to be, ``Amtrak is too small, so let's
make it even smaller.''
Thruway's very important role in California, Florida and elsewhere
deserves recognition. Longview, Texas, is a major Amtrak stop partly
because Thruway connections there make possible trips like Chicago-
Houston and Chicago-Shreveport. In addition, there are the growing
number of intermodal terminals where passengers make their own non-
through-ticketed transfers between Amtrak and other forms of public
transport (intercity and local bus and rail).
A few observations about on-time performance:
--A 30-minute tolerance on a long-distance trip implies many late
trains where passenger dissatisfaction is minimal; someone
traveling from California to Chicago likely will not be
bothered by 40 minutes of lateness (or even longer, if the
staff treats them well and they don't misconnect).
--Passenger (and freight) service, at least in early fiscal year
2001, was still recovering from the debacle that immediately
followed the NS/CSX splitup of Conrail.
--Ex-Southern Pacific lines (used by Sunset Limited, Coast Starlight,
California Zephyr) deteriorated in years before the Union
Pacific acquisition. Since then, an above-normal amount of
track work has been necessary. This creates severe problems on
heavily-used, single-track lines, but not on a permanent basis.
There is concern, however, at the huge number of slow orders
now in place on Union Pacific--covering 8 percent of the Los
Angeles-Portland route.
Comparisons of Amtrak running times with those of the mid-1950s--a
favorite device Joseph Vranich uses to trash Amtrak--miss the point.
Today's travelers don't care about 1950s schedules. In any event your
15\1/2\-hour New York-Chicago running time was for the all-Pullman
Broadway Limited that used a shorter route and skipped most of the
intermediate stops Amtrak's trains serve.
``Amtrak's average fares were approaching 50 percent higher than
those of air.'' There should be a caveat on statements like this.
Amtrak's average fares include sleeping car passengers, Auto Train
travelers--some in sleeping-cars but all transporting automobiles, and
business travel in the NEC where arguably Amtrak should be charging
``what the market will bear.'' We certainly agree that coach travel
should be affordable in the NEC) but that implies a need for larger
operating grants, which we support but which do not seem widely popular
at the White House. We also think there is a huge, untapped market for
economical sleeper rooms, equivalent to the old slumbercoaches Amtrak
inherited and ultimately discontinued.
The reference to ``significant market shares'' (page 7, first full
paragraph) implies that routes without ``significant market shares''
are not of value. Long-distance routes (perhaps excepting New York-
Florida) will never have ``significant market shares'' but we think
they are nonetheless justified if well used. There are issues of
medical inability to fly, fear of flying, desire for the rail travel
choice, service to smaller communities with limited or no public
alternatives, and maintaining the foundation needed for economical
future development of commuter rail and corridor services.
``The Corporation today generates about 800 million fewer
passenger-miles than it did at its 1991 peak and this decline occurred
during a significant expansion in total passenger mobility in the
U.S.''
It would be more correct to say ``in fiscal year 2001 generated''
rather than ``today generates,'' and then to note the post-9/11 trends
This would have been a logical place to report the post-9/11 trends
reflected in my first item and the table. As you know, one major reason
Amtrak travel volume is not greater is the big fare increases imposed
in 1995-96 in an apparently successful attempt to fill a budget hole.
``Average trip lengths have decreased from 288 miles in 1991 to 235
miles in 2001--a drop of one-fifth. This means that fixed per-trip
costs, like reservations and ticketing, are spread over fewer miles.''
This is a stretch. It ignores that much of the growth has come in the
Capitol and Pacific Surfliner Corridors where trains are unreserved
(except in Surfliner business class) and res/ticketing costs are low
because most trips are simple. Fiscal year 2002 may see an increase in
average trip length.
``In the referenced chart, `revenues' are total core revenues less
State subsidies and other governmental payments'' (footnote, page 11).
That fact really belongs in the heading to the table. The decision not
to credit Amtrak with state payments is significant (and questionable--
much better to show both farebox and state payments as in your page 18
table), and many readers will have seen similar information displayed
with state payments.
``Train-miles have risen more than twice as fast as passenger-
miles. . . Amtrak's average trainload of passengers has declined''
(page 12). So what? As you note, the growth of short-distance trains is
a major reason. They are shorter trains. (Another reason is the
Pennsylvanian, a passenger-unfriendly schedule introduced to
accommodate express, which Amtrak--however belatedly--is planning
shortly to change to a more passenger-friendly schedule.)
The page 12 discussion of load factor should include any data
available from fiscal year 2002, since this probably will show a
reversal of the trend. Load factor, of course, is less significant on
trains than on planes and buses because capacity adjustments produce
fewer cost changes on trains (in contrast with doubling the cost every
time a plane or bus schedule adds a second section). Rail transit
typically has relatively low load factors because of lots of empty
seats are standard even in the peak hour (outlying portions of a run
and reverse-peak directional service) but this does mean the service is
inefficient. Load factor also is referenced at the top of page 18 but,
interestingly, is not shown in the table at the bottom. Segmented by
business unit, I believe Intercity--dominated by the long-distance
trains--consistently has the highest load factor.
In discussing overnight services, you state: ``Their primary market
is evidently for personal travel; the size of any potential business
market is unknown because of Amtrak's chronic on-time performance
difficulties and schedules that have deteriorated, in many cases
markedly, since the mid-1950s'' (page 15). Here we go ago with the
1950s comparison. We know that plenty of business travel still existed
in the 1960s, and it is quite likely that at least the New York-Florida
run and probably other runs have business travel today. If Amtrak has
done no surveys recently on this, they should.
``Only in terms of annual passenger-trips do the corridors assume a
preponderant role; because of repetitive travel over shorter distances,
this statistic does not indicate the number of individuals making use
off the various Amtrak services yearly'' (page 17). I can recall no
analysis of airline, auto or intercity bus travel which references
``repetitive travel'' this way, yet airlines and Greyhound have
repetitive riders. The phrase seems to imply that, well, the Amtrak
number really isn't that significant because it reflects some people
traveling repetitively.
``The long-distance trains average only one round-trip daily,
speeds well below 55 miles per hour. . . '' (page 17). Only a closely-
reading lawyer would assume that ``well below 55'' refers to average
speed. Top speeds of 79 and 90 mph mean that on many given segments
trip times are impressive.
``The leading causes of Amtrak's weakened financial condition are
crosscutting cost drivers--those costs that impact every train on every
route'' (page 19). Readers will be eager to hear the definition and
discussion of ``crosscutting cost drivers.''
I look forward to continuing the discussion about insuring the
future of our national passenger rail network.
Sincerely,
Ross B. Capon,
Executive Director.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Congress of American Indians
The more than 200 member tribal nations of the National Congress of
American Indians urges the Subcommittee on Transportation
Appropriations to reject any and all cuts to the Indian Reservation
Roads (IRR) program.
Tribal governments rely on IRR funding to supply the dollars needed
to construct and maintain the public roads that provide access to and
on Indian reservations, Indian trust lands, restricted Indian lands,
and Alaska Native villages. Unfortunately, this funding is woefully
inadequate.
IRR comprise up 2.63 percent of all existing roads in the Federal-
aid highway system, but historically they have received less than one
percent of all Federal highway dollars. On average, only $500 per
mile--and in some cases, as little as $80 per mile--is available for
maintenance. In comparison, an average of $2,200 per mile is spent
maintaining other Federal roads, and an average of $2,500 to $4,000 per
mile is spent by States.
The fact that fully 66 percent of the roads serving Native American
communities are not even paved has a direct impact on basic services to
tribal members. These roads are primarily dirt and clay, ungraded, and
deeply rutted. During spring and fall rains, they turn to mud or wash
out, forcing people to walk for miles to get to their homes. Even more
troubling are these seasonal disruptions to emergency health care and
law enforcement services and to the availability of heating fuel,
water, and food delivery.
We all know that the efficient and safe movement of goods and
services is a basic building block of a viable economic structure. It
goes without saying that having the type of unreliable transportation
infrastructure that is the norm in American Indian and Alaska Native
communities has a direct negative impact on the ability of tribal
governments to attract economic development.
During the TEA-21 debate, NCAI and tribal governments fought hard
to convince Congress to increase funding for Indian roads and bridges.
In the end, tribes received an increase from approximately $191 million
a year to $275 million, which is still far less than what is needed to
address the deplorable road conditions in Indian Country.
Unfortunately, this increase was in large part offset by a new cut
imposed on IRR funding. TEA-21 for the first time extended the
``obligation limitation'' to the Indian roads allocation. Under the
obligation limitation, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is
required to withhold a certain percentage of the total IRR obligation
authority at the beginning of each fiscal year, so that it can be
redistributed at the end of the fiscal year. When the obligation
limitation was expanded to the IRR program in TEA-21, Congress failed
to authorize IRR to participate in this end-of-the-year redistribution.
As a result, funding that was expressly authorized for tribes is now
being diverted to States for their transportation projects. Obviously,
our member tribes consider this to be grossly unfair.
In recognition of this untenable situation, last year Congress
approved and the President signed a fiscal year 2002 Transportation
Appropriations Act that provided funds to offset the obligation
limitation on the IRR and thus resulted in a final funding level of
approximately $275 million, the full authorization level.
We are extremely concerned that the budget request for the
Transportation Department of eliminates the additional IRR funding
contained in the fiscal year 2002 appropriation, which means that we
would see a funding level of approximately $240 million.
Based on recent information provided by the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, the estimate of need based on a grossly out of date IRR
inventory is over $11 billion, not including the cost of project
engineering (planning, survey, design, environmental, archaeological,
and perfection of rights-of-ways) or the cost of constructing new or
existing bridges or other eligible transportation facilities allowed by
the BIA, such as construction of non-BIA jurisdictional routes, transit
facilities, enhancements, and matching to State and local projects.
Today, Indian Reservation Roads are among the worst maintained in
the United States. Our unreliable transportation infrastructure hurts
our ability to attract businesses, provide emergency services, and bus
our children safely to school. The IRR program needs an increase, not a
decrease, and we urge you to support an appropriation to offset any
negative effect of the obligation limitation on its authorized level of
$275 million.
On behalf of NCAI, the oldest, largest, and most representative
tribal organization in the United States, thank you for your past
support of the IRR program and for your consideration of our views.
______
Prepared Statement of the New York State Police
Good morning Senator Murray. I am James W. McMahon, Superintendent
of the New York State Police. I would like to thank you and the entire
Subcommittee on Transportation for the opportunity to discuss with you
a topic which I consider of the utmost importance in my capacity as
both the Superintendent of the New York State Police, and as General
Chair of the State and Provincial Division of the International
Association of Chiefs of Police. Issues of highway safety have profound
impacts on communities in New York State and across this country. Our
roads tie those communities together, move our commerce and thereby
unite us. Unfortunately, our roads and highways also kill more than
40,000 mothers, fathers and children each year, and the majority of
those deaths are needless and preventable.
Highway safety was one of the founding missions of the New York
State Police in 1917, and the importance of that mission has never been
greater. The New York State Police is not a highway patrol, as such. It
is a full service police agency, providing general enforcement and
police services to all of New York's rural communities, as well as
support services to the State's urban police forces, including a
criminal detective force of 980 members. But there is no mission more
important, even today, than the safety of our roads and highways,
because there is no issue which impacts the lives of the average
citizen more often and more dramatically.
We are proud of our highway safety record in New York State. The
year 2000 (the last year for which complete statistics are available)
was our safest in history, dating back to the early 1920s. Our highway
fatality rate of 1.15 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles of travel,
was among the lowest nationally, and the percentage of those deaths
which were alcohol related was second lowest in the nation. Having said
that up front, I can attest to you that those life-saving records could
not have been achieved without strict and targeted enforcement, which
was enhanced by federal funding to the States through the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The same is true of
other States with low fatality rates.
New York's highway safety enforcement strategy is data driven and
results oriented. We apply significant resources to target three main
areas: excessive speed, impaired driving and failure to wear safety
restraints. As I'm sure is the case in other States, these persistent
threats are responsible for the majority of highway tragedies. The
first two, alcohol or drug impairment and speeding, are causative
factors. The third, the use of safety restraints, is the number one
factor in preventing deaths or serious injuries, regardless of
causation.
Let me begin by talking about the last factor first, because it is
the easiest way to improve safety, and it affects the human outcome in
all crashes. To do so, I will provide some history and detail of our
successful Buckle Up New York Campaign, and the impact this program has
had on the safety of all New Yorkers.
New York State was the first State in the nation to enact a
mandatory safety belt law in 1984. The law became effective January 1,
1985. It was a primary law from the start, enabling police to stop
violators solely for not wearing a safety belt. Prior to the law taking
effect, only 12 percent of motorists wore seat belts, and in 1984,
1,012 unrestrained occupants were killed on New York's highways. The
year the mandatory seat belt law took effect, seat belt use jumped to
50 percent and the number unrestrained deaths dropped to 644. New
York's mandatory seat belt law saved 368 lives that year alone.
Over the next 5 years, compliance with the new law rose steadily to
about 70 percent. As with the rest of the nation, these increases in
seat belt use were largely the result of programs at the federal and
State levels, which placed their main emphasis on education and
awareness. But these campaigns reached a level of diminishing returns
in New York State by the mid-1990s, and the steady increases in belt
use stagnated at 70-75 percent between 1994-1998. At the same time, we
in the State Police began to notice a recurrence of crashes where lives
were needlessly lost because the occupants were unrestrained, and we
began discussions about how to increase the use of safety restraints.
Shortly thereafter, I had discussions with NHTSA administrators and
Mr. Chuck Hurley and Ms. Janet Dewey of the National Safety Council's
Air Bag and Seat Belt Safety Campaign, about developing a strategy to
get the remaining 25 percent of New York motorists buckled up. We
studied strategies employed elsewhere in this country and abroad, and
determined that the only strategies which were effective anywhere in
the world, were those which employed a zero-tolerance enforcement
approach. We researched the New York State crash data by location, age
and gender to learn about specific target groups. Lastly, we researched
the field of occupant safety regarding these target groups, including a
landmark literature review by the Meharry Medical College, which
identified a significantly at-risk population of young African-American
males. Subsequently, we established a goal of 85 percent safety belt
use by the end of the year 2000, and developed a strategy of highly
visible zero-tolerance enforcement. We presented the plan to NHTSA and
asked their experts to estimate the safety impacts of increasing belt
use from 74 percent to 85 percent in 18 months. NHTSA estimated that if
successful, 148 lives and $400 million in insurance and medical costs
could be saved. With this objective in mind, the Buckle Up New York
Campaign was instituted in May 1999.
We in the State Police knew from the start that we could not
achieve this objective alone. As is similar in other States, New York
State Troopers accounted for 47 percent of all occupant restraint
enforcement, 55 percent of all speed enforcement, 23 percent of all
impaired driving enforcement and 41 percent of total traffic
enforcement in the State, yet comprise just 5.9 percent of police
manpower. Despite this enforcement presence, an even more extensive law
enforcement commitment would be necessary to change public behavior.
The participation and cooperation of local and county law enforcement
would be critical.
In some cases, local law enforcement agencies did not, consider
traffic enforcement a primary mission. In order to involve them, we
needed a complete package. We had an attainable goal. We developed a
workable strategy, which involved 3 annual enforcement waves, which
supplement year-round enforcement efforts. These waves would be 10 days
long and preceded by 10 days of heightened media. But we knew the local
agencies would not, and in most cases, could not participate without
additional funding for the additional enforcement. For this we needed
the assistance of NHTSA, through the offices of our Governor's Traffic
Safety Committee.
When Governor George E. Pataki, nominated me as Superintendent of
State Police, he provided me a mandate to continue to improve the
safety of New York's highways and communities by working in cooperation
with local authorities. That is a mandate I take very seriously. But
while the governor had made great investments in improving the
capability of the New York State Police to safeguard the highways,
including 100 additional troopers, new electronic breath test
instruments and state-of-the-art speed enforcement instruments, I knew
that in this case fulfillment of that mandate meant improving the
capability of other agencies. Only by ensuring funding for the county
and local agencies, could we improve the safety of our roads and
highways statewide.
NHTSA and the Governor's Traffic Safety Committee responded in
dramatic fashion, providing funding to any agency willing to join the
enforcement effort. A streamlined funding application procedure was
implemented through a State Police law enforcement liaison assigned for
this purpose. Letters were sent to each police chief and sheriff, and
each was visited personally to enlist his or her support. In addition,
an extensive child passenger safety program was implemented in
partnership with other State agencies, local law enforcement and other
safety practitioners, to improve the safety of our smallest and most
vulnerable vehicle occupants. With the support of available federal
funding, a comprehensive Buckle Up New York Campaign began to take
shape.
In order to build greater support in minority communities, we
partnered with NHTSA to host a diversity forum at the New York State
Police Academy. In attendance were representatives from the NAACP,
ACLU, Local Urban Leagues, educators, and leaders of faith-based
communities, some of whom could not have attended without the financial
assistance provided by NHTSA. Attendees were informed of the findings
of our research and asked to be part of the solution. The result was
great community support for our enforcement efforts and relationships
which continue to this day.
The second phase of this outreach involved improving the capability
of the economically disadvantaged to safeguard their children. While I
consider failure to protect child passengers gross neglect and strict
enforcement child seat laws is warranted, it is also necessary to
ensure that those without the financial means to protect their
children, are provided with the means to do so. Once again, we turned
to our partners at the Governor's Traffic Safety Committee and NHTSA
for federal funding, and today a statewide mechanism is in place to
ensure that no care-giver will be denied access to child restraints due
to their economic status. This has significantly improved our
relationships in minority communities.
Since may 1999, seven Buckle up New York enforcement waves have
been conducted, resulting in the issuance of more than 300,000 tickets
for failure to wear restraints. More than 9,600 of those tickets were
for child restraint violations. The statewide average safety restraint
use rate has been measured as high as 88.3 percent, a significant
increase from the 74 percent recorded prior to the first wave. Most
importantly, 141 lives were saved between 1999 and 2000, nearly
reaching NHTSAs estimate of 148.
Throughout the campaign, the involvement of local and county level
enforcement grew, which contributed significantly to the outcome.
During the first wave, local and county enforcement accounted for about
a third of the enforcement effort, but by the end of the seventh wave,
accounted for 42 percent. More than any other component, this
involvement was critical to the successful and life-saving outcome of
the program, and could this not have occurred without significant
federal funding.
Please allow me to summarize the main points of our recent
experience in increasing safety restraint use in New York State,
because I believe the effective strategies used in the Buckle Up New
York Campaign, with the support of critical and targeted funding
provided by NHTSA, can be replicated in States nationwide.
First, proper use of seat belts and child restraints is the most
effective way to prevent needless deaths and debilitating injuries,
regardless of the actual cause of any motor vehicle crash. These
tragedies exact a great cost and result in widespread suffering in
American society, and buckling up is the easiest means of prevention.
Second, enforcement works. When applied across the board by State,
county and local agencies, the potential of receiving a ticket for not
wearing a seatbelt is the impetus required to achieve rates of seat
belt use in excess of 80 percent.
And third, the additional enforcement required to significantly
raise seat belt use and thereby save lives and prevent injuries, cannot
be accomplished without federal funding. This is especially true in
light of recent demands for enhanced security efforts, and their fiscal
implications on State and local budgets. Without the federal
assistance, lives will continue to be needlessly lost on our highways.
While we have not yet solved the problem of unrestrained occupants
in New York State, I believe we have found the formula to address it.
We witnessed nearly a 10 percent reduction in fatalities in New York
State since implementing Buckle Up New York. It is a model which we
adopted from others, and it can work elsewhere in America as well.
In the time remaining, let me turn to the other two highway safety
concerns, impaired driving and excessive speed.
There has been great progress made in reducing the incidence of
impaired driving in the U.S. in recent years, but I fear that apathy is
setting in, and today we are at risk of relinquishing some of the gains
made. In highway safety, apathy equals lives lost. The downward trend
in impaired driving deaths has leveled off, and more attention and
innovation may be necessary to prevent greater loss of life.
Impaired driving is a continual concern in New York State,
particularly where our youngest drivers are concerned. Drivers under
age 21 make up just 5 percent of the licensed drivers, but are involved
in 14 percent of fatal crashes in New York. Compounding the problems,
recent census data indicate that the number of licensed drivers under
age 21 in New York State will grow by 25 percent in the next decade.
Therefore, if nothing is done, more young lives will be lost.
We are attempting to apply the strategies employed in the Buckle Up
New York Campaign to impaired driving and underage drinking. We are
developing joint enforcement operations with county and local
enforcement agencies and the State Liquor Authority to improve
enforcement of underage consumption and sale of alcoholic beverages. In
addition, we have the benefit of a State mechanism to fund local
impaired driving countermeasures. A State law titled Special Traffic
Options Program for Driving While Intoxicated (Stop-DWI), returns fines
imposed on impaired driving violators to county level administrators to
fund additional enforcement efforts. This law, enacted in 1982, is one
of the main factors contributing to New York's success in combating
impaired driving. As in the effort to improve safety restraint use,
coordinated statewide efforts offer the greatest promise to preventing
impaired driving, and continued funding will be necessary to support
those efforts.
In the last area, speed enforcement, I dare to say that law
enforcement is currently losing the battle. Non-compliance with speed
limits is widespread in New York State and nationwide. Like no other
law, many behave as though it is their inalienable right to speed, and
unfortunately for too many, the results are tragic. In New York State,
24 percent of fatalities in 2000 were attributable to excessive speed.
Addressing the issue will take a large scale programming and additional
resources to provide new technologies and the staffing necessary to
implement them.
In closing, I would like to say what I have said to many recruit
troopers at the State Police Academy. It is hard to prevent a murder
which occurs behind closed doors, but it is relatively easy to prevent
a murder on the highway by stopping a drunk or speeding driver. So too,
it is relatively easy to prevent the needless death of an occupant who
does not buckle up or of a child who's safety is unconscionably
neglected by being left unrestrained. And although we may not remember
the faces of the people we save, we certainly do remember the faces of
those we fail to save. Both are equally real, and it is incumbent upon
us to prevent the latter.
Senator Murray, that concludes my testimony. Again, I want to thank
you and the entire committee for this great opportunity to express my
views on highway safety. I would be happy to answer any questions you
or the subcommittee may have.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
______
Prepared Statement of the Rail Travel Center
summary
We support Amtrak's request for $1.2 Billion in capital and
operating funds for fiscal year 2003, but
We urge that the fiscal year 2003 equipment repair program be
immediately implemented in fiscal year 2002.
We support the experimental franchising of a selected Amtrak route
and/or service.
We do not support the separation of the Northeast Corridor (NEC)
from the control of Amtrak.
We oppose exclusive State funding of regional services.
We absolutely believe the Federal Government must continue to
provide meaningful capital and operating grants if any rail system is
to survive, even the regional corridor services.
Rail Travel Center has operated tours by train worldwide since
1982. We have consistently marketed Amtrak travel as a part of that
program and therefore have an experienced perspective on the current
Amtrak situation. Too often, discussions of Amtrak are conducted
without input from those who actually sell and use train travel. This
situation becomes even more urgent in light of Amtrak's February 1,
2002 press release, which suggests the carrier might end its national
network by dropping all long-distance trains as early as October 1,
2002.
We believe Amtrak must receive the $200 million it has requested to
preserve its connected national network, and that now also is the time
to initiate measures ensuring passenger train services continue to
operate in the long-term. Therefore, we support bringing the equipment
repair portion of Amtrak's $820 million fiscal year 2003 capital
request forward into fiscal year 2002. At present, the company
gradually is losing its operating fleet due to the effects of deferred
maintenance, ironically just as demand is trending dramatically upward.
In the longer term, we support an experimental program of franchising
selected Amtrak routes and services to bring about better marketing,
operations and cost-recovery.
As we note below, the problem with Amtrak is not a lack of
potential business. Rather, Amtrak's troubles derive in large measure
from a lack of equipment to meet the demand already on offer. Worse,
Amtrak's management too often has compounded the equipment shortfall by
refusing to use assets it already possesses. We will outline our
concerns with these practices below, in a section we characterize as
``Institutionalized Pessimism''.
We also want to reassert our deep respect for Amtrak, which has
been a good business partner to Rail Travel Center. We know for the
last thirty years its managers have been forced to grapple with
virtually no meaningful capital investment outside the Northeast
Corridor (and on a very few regional lines). This has fostered a
corporate culture of endless cost cutting combined with a tight focus
on the needs of the NEC, where Amtrak saw its most likely source for
immediate funding. That attention has come at the expense of the
national system. We appreciate our many long-term relationships with
fine Amtrak employees, but we also recognize that Amtrak, as an
institution, has flaws which must be addressed.
Rail Travel Center is concerned about the harmful potential in a
universal implementation of the recommendations of the Amtrak Reform
Council (ARC). Although we set forth our chief differences in some
detail below, we do not oppose all ARC recommendations. In particular,
we believe the ARC is correct in urging at least some franchising
(partial privatization) of Amtrak services. If done correctly, this
could reverse the past Amtrak inclination to avoid opportunity and
risk, lead to a dramatic increase in passenger train ridership (a trend
already underway), and ultimately reduce the need for government
support. Our analysis of these views follows.
discussion of the arc report, amtrak marketing difficulties, and the
arc suggestion for amtrak route franchising
The worldwide experience with passenger train franchising is mixed
but far more positive than some recent media coverage of the failure of
the British Railtrack Company would suggest. Not all the 26 British
rail franchise operators have failed to turn a profit, improve service,
or reduce government support. At least ten are operating profitably,
and more will be when track repairs are completed. The Great
Northeastern Railway, Scot Rail and First Great Western offer
outstanding service. Throughout the United Kingdom the frequency of
trains has increased, and entire fleets of new equipment are in service
or on order. Clearly, far too many franchises were issued (which should
be avoided here), but the near meltdown of British operations in the
last year reflected the mismanagement of the Railtrack infrastructure
company, not the train operators. We need to learn from the errors of
the British; but it is false to consider British franchising an overall
failure.
An even more relevant example of the successful franchising of
long-haul services can be found in Australia. The operation of the
transcontinental INDIAN PACIFIC, GHAN and OVERLAND trains was assumed
by a private operator (Great Southern Railway) which retained an
assured level of government support but only could make a profit by
increasing its business. This is precisely what has happened. More
frequent trains with more cars are operating. Fares were raised to the
maximum economic level, especially for First Class travel, yet
patronage soared with the adoption of the philosophy that ``the more
passengers we carry, the more money we make''.
We want to see the Amtrak Reauthorization and the ARC Review
processes succeed in preserving a truly national U.S. rail passenger
system. Their actions can facilitate either a creative redesign of
American rail travel or lead to a virtually useless system of isolated
corridors best described as ``Balkan Track''. This disconnected system
would almost certainly disappear, as it would lack both broad-based
Congressional support and any connectivity, thus becoming woefully
under-used. As the airlines' ``hub and spoke'' systems have proven,
easy connections between the maximum number of destinations are
essential to efficiency, patronage and profitability.
Areas of Concern With the ARC Report.
Neither Amtrak nor any successor can succeed without adequate
capital and a multi-year guarantee of operational support.--This need
must be satisfied for any operator to succeed. No real planning can
occur if an operator must annually beg for funding. The United States
must commit to a rationally capitalized and funded rail network, or
failure is certain. If this can be done, subsidies will gradually
decline and patronage will increase.
The semantics used in U.S. transportation policy must change.--Why
is it said we ``invest'' in highways and air service while
``subsidizing'' rail? It should be clearly understood by everyone that
all of these funds accomplish the same thing: government funding
assistance for the transportation needs of Americans in all parts of
our country.
ARC's suggestion that regional services be funded only by State or
regional agencies is flawed and will insure such trains die.--The
partial Federal financial support of State-initiated trains (as is
presently done) is a good approach which has produced outstanding
routes such as the CASCADES in the Pacific Northwest and the new
DOWNEASTER between Boston and Portland, Maine. It is unlikely the
multi-state compacts needed under the ARC recommendations would be
adequately funded at the State level. If, for example, three States
were responsible for a route (a good example is trains between Chicago
and Detroit), all operations could end due to a fiscal crisis in a
single State. This is precisely what happened in 1971/72 when Amtrak's
original Buffalo-Chicago train was dropped because the five States
along the route failed to come to an agreement over how to divide the
costs.
ARC's recommendation to strip Amtrak of the ownership of the
Northeast Corridor would degrade service.--Any experienced railroader
will attest to the need to control train dispatching. Amtrak's
difficulty in raising speeds between New York and New Haven eloquently
speaks to the problem of divided track ownership. This critical portion
of the NEC is owned and dispatched by the Metro North Commuter
Railroad, a joint agency of the New York and Connecticut Departments of
Transportation. Metro North has priorities not necessarily including
high-speed access for Amtrak. Every other part of the NEC also hosts
commuter trains, but elsewhere Amtrak controls dispatching and can
assure access for its trains.
Most importantly, there is no likelihood a separate agency for the
NEC would be more successful in garnering Federal funds than Amtrak has
been. A more likely outcome is that such an agency would try to collect
ever-increasing track access fees from Amtrak and the various State
commuter authorities. Since these agencies' resources already are
severely stressed, the likely outcome would be a further drop in
services.
Land-cruise trains are not the answer in providing a national
system.--Tour trains are essential to the business plan of Rail Travel
Center, but we clearly understand that they are not the ``real
transportation'' required of a national rail system. Of necessity,
these trains serve only end-points, run very infrequently, and are
extremely expensive. Moreover, they could not provide regular
transportation even if they wanted to, since their operators could not
afford to give up their limited capacity to local customers, space that
might be sold for the full journey. Their schedules also could not
tolerate frequent stops to accommodate shorter-distance passengers and
still arrive at sightseeing destinations at appropriate hours.
The land-cruise trains presently operating nationally do so in
large measure because they are able to charter engines and train crews
from Amtrak. Most importantly, they use Amtrak's track-access rights to
run on the freight railroads. Without a national Amtrak system, these
trains would disappear because their costs would be impossible and they
would be unable to reach most scenic areas.
Amtrak's long-haul trains serve far more passenger than up-scale
tourists. Only long-haul trains serve such large cities as Denver, Salt
Lake, Memphis, New Orleans, Dallas and Minneapolis. They feed countless
connecting passengers into Amtrak's regional and corridor trains,
virtually none of whom who would ride those services without the long-
haul trains. These trains often are sold-out months in advance,
particularly in the summer and at holidays. The sleeping car services
are very heavily used. Even before September 11, First Class space
frequently was unavailable. Since then, sleeper demand has grown 15-18
percent, yet (as we will note below) Amtrak's fleet of serviceable cars
is declining just as demand grows.
Long-distance trains provide the only public transportation for
many points and the only reliable winter service over large parts of
entire routes, such as Chicago to Seattle. They are very well used. For
example, the often-belittled EMPIRE BUILDER carried 398,000 passengers
on the Chicago-Seattle (Portland) route in fiscal year 2001. This is an
average of 1094 passengers per day, or 547 on each train (allowing for
the fact that the train runs daily in each direction). Yet the EMPIRE
BUILDER serves such tiny (but rail dependent) towns as Wolf Point,
Montana and Williston, North Dakota. Many departures are sold out
months in advance, a fact that often has eluded Amtrak's critics.
System-wide, these ``little used'' trains actually carried 5.88
million passengers in fiscal year 2001, over 16,110 riders per day.
Typically, a third of the passengers on the national services connected
to other Amtrak routes, frequently including the very corridor trains
which are so often claimed to be Amtrak's only viable operations.
Amtrak's own Market-Based Network Analysis (MBNA) in 1999-2000 made the
clear point that elimination of Amtrak's national network would
dramatically increase losses on all remaining routes. Not only would
connecting revenues be lost, but other costs such as depreciation,
reservations and terminal expenses would fall on a far smaller number
of routes. This impact could convert a marginally profitable operation
like the NEC to a money-loser.
If the tragic events of September 11-15, 2001 proved nothing else
about our rail transportation policy, they demonstrated the absolute
necessity of maintaining a real, interconnected, national rail system
in the United States.
Having expressed areas of concern about the ARC Report, we turn to
a discussion of points in the Report we think have real merit.
Prefacing that analysis, it is necessary to indicate what we observe to
be Amtrak's marketing problems and how they warrant at least the
partial implementation of several ARC recommendations.
Amtrak Marketing Problems
Amtrak tends toward a corporate culture of institutionalized
pessimism, which too often causes it to miss business opportunities.--
Under unremitting pressure to cut losses, Amtrak managers have focused
for over three decades on cutting costs; but this concentration has had
unfortunate consequences. Too often Amtrak has avoided expense by
avoiding opportunity, acting as if it fears ``the more people we carry,
the more money we'll lose''. Rail Travel Center's experience in its 20
years of selling Amtrak have shown us Amtrak's long-haul trains are
frequently sold-out, yet for a variety of reasons Amtrak rarely
responds to its lack of space by adding capacity.
This flies in the face of a fundamental business truth. If a
merchant has something to sell and it quickly sells out, two lessons
are properly learned: Get additional inventory now and raise prices
until sales stop! Amtrak has experimented with market-driven pricing
but rarely has acted on the need for more capacity. The long-haul
system has been fundamentally compromised by the failure to meet market
demand. These trains do not lack for riders; rather they lack capacity
and frequency.
Amtrak cripples itself further by not keeping proper records on
potential business that is lost.--Amtrak refuses to take waitlists for
sold-out trains because accepting waitlists would require staffing its
reservations bureaus with extra workers to call passengers as space
cleared. Amtrak managers always have preferred cost-containment through
reduced staffing as opposed to having the opportunity to board more
passengers. The result has been to deny Amtrak information it needs to
properly estimate unmet demand. Amtrak often has used the excuse of a
lack of cars to justify its reluctance to take waitlists; and indeed,
the company clearly needs much more equipment. But if Amtrak managers
really knew how much business they were losing, they could better
justify capital expenditures for new equipment and to repair existing
cars.
Even in the west, where extra cars should be available given the
size of the Superliner fleet, extra cars rarely are added. Indeed, in
the last few years Amtrak has cut the capacity of most western trains,
even in the face of frequently sold-out consists at peak seasons.
Ideally a car would be added whenever advanced ticket sales reached the
capacity of a train. The process of making that decision would be
further enhanced if proper waitlists were kept. Even if cars never had
to be added, waitlists would insure programmed capacity rarely ran
empty by refilling space after cancellations.
All other transportation carriers . . . rail, sea and air . . .
keep such waitlists. In 20 years at Rail Travel Center, we never failed
to get a client onto the frequently sold-out VIA Rail Canada
transcontinental service who was willing to be waitlisted. VIA
therefore never lost that revenue.
Amtrak intentionally has reduced the capacity of many long-distance
trains by failing to repair wreck-damaged equipment and by deferring
essential overhauls.--This saved money at the expense of undermining
patronage on trains which were turning away customers. The result is
reflected in reduced capacity and declining patronage even on trains
that often are sold-out long before departure.
A good example is the vital CALIFORNIA ZEPHYR, which traditionally
carries three sleeping cars in the summer season over the entire route
from Chicago to San Francisco. Last summer the third car ran only
between Chicago and Denver on most dates. The supremely scenic portion
of the route through the Rocky Mountains and the High Sierras was left
without adequate sleeper capacity. Lack of cars was blamed. In order to
obtain the added Chicago to Denver sleeper, Amtrak stripped its
Chicago-Louisville train of any sleeping car space at all for the
entire summer. Yet at that very time, Amtrak had many Superliner cars
in storage awaiting either deferred overhauls or wreck repairs.
Obviously, Amtrak managers favored short-term cost savings over meeting
passenger demand. This behavior makes a well-used service like the
CALIFORNIA ZEPHYR appear to suffer from declining patronage, when in
fact passengers are being turned away.
The February 1, 2002 Amtrak Press Release announcing draconian
maintenance cuts for fiscal year 2002 will compound the problem. If
cars are not routinely overhauled, the stored fleet inevitably will
grow. Every 180 days, all Amtrak equipment must receive major
maintenance or be parked until that work is done. Even if essential
repairs are performed, business will be lost if trains depart with cars
that have torn upholstery, malfunctioning air conditioning, or improper
cleaning.
In mid-January 2002, 32 of Amtrak's double-decker Superliner
sleeping cars were out of service for maintenance and/or repair work.
This represents 26.9 percent of the fleet. Some of these cars have been
stored for months. Already Amtrak has trouble finding the cars to
respond to both emergencies and opportunities.
The Congress could be very helpful by targeting a portion of its
annual Amtrak appropriation for equipment maintenance and repair and
insisting those funds not be diverted to any other purpose. In the
short-term, an emergency appropriation is needed in fiscal year 2002 to
repair stored cars for service before the summer season begins. Without
capacity, Amtrak cannot possibly meet any performance goals.
The VIA Rail Canada system provides dramatic evidence of the
success of running as many cars as demand requires. For years, VIA
capped its trans-continental CANADIAN at 9 cars in the off-season and
17 in summer. VIA also feared ``the more people we carry, the more
money we'll lose''. But faced with a permanently capped level of
government support, VIA raised fares as high as the market would bear
and added cars until demand was filled. Now the CANADIAN often carries
26 cars, but the train covers its costs in the high season and has
dramatically improved its finances year-round. No VIA trains have been
cut since 1994, despite no increase in operating subsidies throughout
the 1990s.
Amtrak consistently under-estimates the likely patronage of new
services.--Such remarkable success stories as the CAPITALS in
California, the CASCADES in the Northwest, and the DOWNEASTER in Maine
were grudgingly supported in their early stages by an Amtrak management
that too often accepted the assumption few passengers would travel even
on a well-run service.
The company's 1999-2000 Market Based Network Analysis (MBNA) might
have offered a way out. Unfortunately, most new routes proposed in the
first MBNA report were express and mail driven, and few of those
actually were implemented. Amtrak appears to have completely abandoned
the promised second round of MBNA recommendations, which was expected
to include new passenger-oriented lines. The first MBNA was totally
silent on the most obvious examples of unserved markets. For example,
no trains were projected to serve Chicago to Florida (one of the
busiest of all travel routes) or Denver to Dallas.
Starting new trains requires major Federal and State capital
investment and some additional operating support. Amtrak would request
this funding in its annual budget if starting new routes was really an
Amtrak priority. Congressional and State support follows the perception
that something might actually happen. Consider the resurgent interest
in trains in Oklahoma once the Oklahoma City to Fort Worth HEARTLAND
FLYER began operating.
Amtrak rarely does effective Route-Specific Marketing.--Although
Amtrak spends millions annually on advertising, virtually all of its
media placements for the national network are vague ``image''
advertising. Amtrak tells users that ``Trains are Fun'', ``All Aboard
Amtrak'', or ``Tracks are Back'', but it rarely runs an ad targeting
the potential users of an individual train. After 30 years of Amtrak
operation, most people know that Amtrak exists. What they do not know
is where it goes, what they could see on a trip, and how much it might
cost to travel.
Rarely are we told ``The Ten Best Reasons to Take the SOUTHWEST
CHIEF''. Route-specific promotions work; and when Amtrak has tried this
approach they often have been very successful, most recently in adding
patronage to the threatened TEXAS EAGLE. But individual route ads do
not appeal to national advertising agencies that want to place generic
ads they perceive meet all needs.
Even when route-specific marketing has been pursued, Amtrak
sometimes gets it wrong. The most recent example is the naming of all
NEC trains ``ACELA''. In the public mind, the term ``ACELA'' denotes
the 150 mph American super trains; yet passengers board typical NEC
services run with 25 year-old Amfleet cars and are deeply unhappy to
find they are not on a true ``ACELA''. Calling an all-stops New York to
Philadelphia local an ACELA COMMUTER is simply confusing to the public,
especially when a true ACELA EXPRESS bullet train may leave 5 minutes
later.
This brings us to the areas where we feel the ARC report has merit.
However, a basic principal must preface any discussion of possible
franchise options.
The present Amtrak network is far too skeletal, not too large.
We support experimental and limited franchising of selected Amtrak
routes or service functions. This should produce operators who will
aggressively market. We have no illusions that all government support
can be eliminated, but it very likely can be gradually reduced as
patronage grows with dedicated marketing. Each franchise award would
come with an assured level of government support. As noted above,
Amtrak has historically focused its efforts on the NEC and a few other
regional corridors (largely to exclusion of the long-haul network)
because it correctly perceived the money was in those routes. If real
dollars were applied to the support of the long-haul system, its
operation should attract both Amtrak and other potential vendors.
Actions to be Taken Before any Franchising Begins
A special program needs to be funded to restore all stored Amtrak
equipment to operating condition.--No operator can succeed without
adequate equipment, nor could any meaningful new routes be started or
capacity added to existing trains without more cars than presently are
serviceable. Amtrak must not sell any more of its stored equipment.
Many fine cars in long-term storage should be renovated for operation.
For example, an entire fleet of former Santa Fe RR ``High Level'' chair
cars is stored, offering the potential for hundreds of seats per day if
returned to service. There is absolutely no lack of demand for any of
Amtrak's stored assets.
Tax incentives and grants should be made available for purchase of
additional passenger cars.--This is the essential capital commitment
that the government must make to allow any rail program to succeed. New
cars already are desperately needed, especially on eastern long-haul
routes where Amtrak uses almost every car it owns every day and
literally has no reserve fleet. If franchising succeeds, more cars will
quickly be needed. We must spend money now to make future money. To
minimize the amount in direct grants, the tax code should be reviewed
for ways to encourage private sector initiatives; for example, using
tax credits and accelerated depreciation. In addition, the fuel tax
collected on the railroads should be diverted to railway capital needs.
The High Speed Rail Investment Act (HSRIA) should be passed to
assure regional route development.--We are absolutely in support of the
incremental upgrade strategy essential to the HSRIA process. A network
of higher-speed corridors should hugely reduce Amtrak's expenses and
increase its ridership throughout the system.
A Federal Passenger Rail Franchise Oversight Agency (FOA) should be
created to analyze which services might be franchised.--Not all routes
may offer the prospect of real cost reductions. To assure a reasonable
chance of success, the train services offered in a franchise award
package must be sufficient in number to allow for adequate synergies of
scale. It is very unlikely any individual train alone can be
franchised. This agency should include representatives of the operating
railroads, organized labor, the Department of Transportation, Amtrak,
the States currently supporting Amtrak trains, and the travel industry.
An independent arbitrator, in cooperation with the FOA, should make the
actual ultimate award of franchises.
Amtrak should be retained, and encouraged to bid to operate any
services included in any franchise award(s).--The objective of any
franchising should be to encourage an expanded rail passenger system
with better economics through improved route-specific marketing,
equipment utilization, and a more pro-active management culture.
It should be understood that no franchise awards would be likely
for 2 years.
conclusions
Steps to Implement an Experimental Franchise Process
We should franchise at least one group of Amtrak routes. The
franchise should contain enough trains to give the operator a
reasonable synergy of scale. For example, all long-haul trains running
west from Chicago might be a franchise grouping. Another could be all
trains run with Superliner equipment, or all long-haul trains to
Florida, the Carolinas and New Orleans. Amtrak and other potential
operators (including the freight railroads) should be encouraged to bid
for the franchise to serve any route. Until the success of the initial
franchise can be properly evaluated, all other services should remain
under Amtrak's direct control.
There must be a Federal guarantee of a fixed level of financial
support. This guarantee must be for a multi-year period equal to the
duration of the franchise award, be contractually assured, and not
subject to the annual appropriations process. For regional trains,
partial State support also could be a part of the package. An
expectation of the franchise award would be that an operator seek to
gradually reduce the government's support; but it would be clearly
understood the operator would not be expected to cover all fully-
allocated costs.
The franchise holder would be required to operate the service for
the full period of the award but could adjust service levels based on
market demand as long as year-round service was provided. The Amtrak
right of track access must be transferred to any franchise holder; but
freight railroads should be encouraged to enter into the process, if
possible by actually bidding for appropriate franchises. To encourage
participation by the freight railroads, substantial tax incentives
should be offered. This will help assure track access and good
dispatching, even if the freight carrier is not the ultimate franchise
operator.
There must be on-going review of the performance (both financial
and operational), of each franchise. Poorly-run franchises could be
cancelled or offered to other operators.
Amtrak's equipment should be allocated on a competitive basis.--If
equipment needs are recognized on a route-by-route basis, mistakes
(such as Amtrak's failure to order a single passenger car for its long-
haul national system with the more than two billion dollars in capital
provided in the recent Roth capital appropriation) can be avoided. From
that appropriation, only express and mail equipment was purchased for
routes outside the NEC and California.
We should experiment with privatizing on-board services including
dining cars and sleepers.--For years Amtrak has had the authority to
privatize its food services. This should be done now. Amtrak did
contract-out the commissary function for its diners but not the actual
operation on board the trains. This is where the greatest savings can
be found. While it is unlikely a concessionaire would want to handle a
single train, the entire long-haul system and/or a route grouping (such
as all regional services out of Chicago) might look financially
rewarding to a private operator.
While it is a clich of rail operations that dining cars cannot be
operated profitably, this is not always true. For many years the Alaska
RR has used a contractor for its diners. Amtrak itself has two trains
with private food operations: the North Carolina PIEDMONT and the
Boston-Portland DOWNEASTER. Quality food service is absolutely
essential to the rider, but options for lower cost service should be
investigated. Amtrak would provide meal cars to the concessionaire, who
would pay a reasonable fee to Amtrak for an effective service monopoly.
The same approach could be very successful for the operation of
sleeping car services. Even if Amtrak retained the basic authority to
run all routes, a strong argument can be made that subsidy payments
should be focused on coach travelers, with First Class services
reasonably expected to run profitably.
Franchising may reduce the need for Federal support; but Federal
investment always will be needed, as it is for the airlines with the
Federally funded air traffic control system. A franchise operator will
have every incentive to concentrate all resources on the assigned
route. This can only improve service and revenue returns. An experiment
with at least one franchised route and/or service package is a risk
worth taking.
The ultimate object of the Amtrak Reauthorization and ARC review
process should be to preserve and expand American rail passenger
service. The present model does not work, and we see no easy fix simply
by continuing the status quo. A true national network must be
preserved. It is essential to the safety and public good of the nation.
______
Prepared Statement of the Regional Transportation Commission of
Southern Nevada
introduction
The Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC) is
pleased to have the opportunity to submit this testimony to the
Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee in support of our fiscal
year 2003 funding requests.
The RTC is a public entity created under the laws of the State of
Nevada with the authority to operate a public transit system and
administer a motor fuels tax to finance regional street and highway
improvements. In addition, the RTC is the Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) for the Las Vegas Valley. As the public transit
provider, the RTC operates Citizens Area Transit (CAT), a mass transit
system that now carries more than 51.2 million annual passengers and
recovers over 48 percent of its operating and maintenance costs from
the farebox.
community
The Las Vegas community is currently home to over 1.4 million
permanent residents. With 17 of the world's largest resort hotels
adding over 32 million annual visitors, the actual population of Las
Vegas on any given day exceeds 1.5 million persons. In addition, the
Las Vegas metropolitan area continues to experience explosive growth.
The 2000 census confirmed that the Las Vegas Valley is the fastest
growing community in the United States. The economy of the Las Vegas
Valley is characterized by a favorable business environment, a strong
job market, an absence of a business and personal income tax, and a
comparatively low property tax by national standards. This environment
has fostered an era of extraordinary growth that, since 1990, has
fueled the creation of over 175,000 new jobs and has witnessed the
influx of over 500,000 new residents to the Valley. Current projections
indicate that population and employment will continue to increase,
exceeding 2.1 million residents and over 1 million jobs by the year
2020. This dramatic growth in population brings additional challenges
to the transportation network with increases in congestion and travel
delays. Ensuring adequate mobility is essential to maintaining a
superior quality of life for residents and continuing growth in
employment.
citizens area transit
Citizens Area Transit (CAT) began service in December, 1992 and at
that time represented the largest single start-up of new bus service in
North America in over 20 years. Annual CAT ridership has grown from
14.9 million riders in 1993 to over 51.2 million riders in 2001; a
growth rate of over 243 percent in only 9 years, catapulting CAT to the
25th largest bus system in the Nation out of 2,250 transit systems. Las
Vegas is the fastest growing city in the United States, but ridership
on the CAT system is growing at a rate faster than other local economic
indicators, including population, employment, hotel rooms, visitor
volumes, airport passengers, vehicle miles traveled, and auto
registrations.
To address the ever increasing demand for transit services, the RTC
has continually increased bus service. Since startup, total annual
hours of revenue service have almost doubled, from 585,134 hours in
1993 to over 1.2 million hours in 2001. Similarly, annual vehicle miles
have also doubled; from 6,384,660 miles in 1993 to over 16,098,000
miles in 2001. In addition, the CAT system has continued to
successfully increase ridership while continuing to operate in a highly
efficient manner. Costs per passenger have dropped consistently since
startup, to approximately $1.49 per passenger. The recent Harvard
study, The Private Provision of Public Transport, found the CAT
system's cost per hour of service and farebox recovery ratio to be
among the best in the industry.
With 46 bus routes operating throughout the greater Las Vegas
Valley, as well as routes in the rural communities of Laughlin and
Mesquite, Nevada, CAT is now carrying over 4.5 million passengers per
month, with some routes operating in excess of 200 percent capacity.
While the CAT routes operating along the high-profile Las Vegas
Boulevard provide service to up to 25,000 passengers per day, these
routes account for only 18 percent of the total monthly ridership.
Clearly, many Las Vegas residents rely heavily on the CAT system to get
to work, school, shopping, medical services and recreational
facilities. Providing mass transit services throughout the Las Vegas
Valley, CAT has become essential to the fabric of the Las Vegas
community.
Although the CAT system has doubled service availability since
startup, the demands for even more service continue to escalate. The
urban boundaries of the Las Vegas Valley continue to push in all
directions, creating new areas of growth and transit demand. In
addition to under served areas, the frequency of service on most
existing routes serving the residential base of the Valley is
substantially less than needed. The single largest constraint faced by
the RTC to providing more service continues to be lack of a sufficient
number of coaches to meet demand. When compared to other peer cities,
CAT transports up to 3 times the number of passengers per vehicle
annually.
new starts funding
The RTC is requesting $20 million in fiscal year 2003 New Starts
funding for its Resort Corridor fixed guideway project. The project is
a 3.1 mile dual direction monorail that would have a seamless
connection with a privately financed and constructed monorail in the
Resort Corridor. This unique project exemplifies the opportunities that
exist in a cooperative effort between the public and private sectors.
The private sector portion is already under construction. Preliminary
engineering on the public portion is expected to be completed in the
Spring of 2002. The project received a recommended rating from the
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) in its 2002 New Starts Report and
has been recognized for its cost effectiveness, operating efficiencies
and environmental benefits--each of which has received a high rating
from FTA. The Administration has included funding in its fiscal year
2003 Department of Transportation Budget for the project. The requested
fiscal year 2003 funds would be used for continuing development of the
project, including land acquisition, relocation expenses, final design,
and initial construction activities.
bus rapid transit
The RTC is seeking $5 million in fiscal year 2003 bus discretionary
funds to assist in the construction of platforms and shelters at bus
stops for the RTC's Bus Rapid Transit project. The RTC is utilizing an
innovative optically guided bus, known as Civis, that will operate
along a heavily traveled commuting corridor. Traditional bus service
along the Las Vegas Boulevard North Corridor currently carries over
8,000 passengers a day for a 13-hour peak period. The requested funds
would enable the RTC to construct platforms and bus shelters along the
corridor. This project offers a distinct opportunity for the
implementation of new bus technologies and innovative transit services
in the United States.
The Civis is a high capacity vehicle with low floor accessibility,
perimeter seating, utilizing clean diesel electric power, and providing
opportunities to reduce roadway spaces and to minimize costly traffic
engineering improvements. The Civis vehicle carries up to 168
passengers and has four points of entry. From a service perspective,
the most significant element of the BRT project is the usage of an
automated guidance system. This guidance system will assist coach
operators in the approach to a bus stop and aligning the actual
stopping point of the vehicle at the platformed bus stop. The
advantages of such a system in BRT operations include maintaining close
curb distances, ensuring that vehicle doors are aligned with loading/
exiting areas, and eliminating gaps between the vehicle and the
platform stopping area. This not only significantly improves boarding
for wheelchairs and the disabled community, but also allows for off-
vehicle fare collection. More importantly, the features described above
allow the RTC to carry a greater number of passengers more efficiently,
expand services, increase passenger comfort and convenience, and assist
the region in attaining enhanced air quality benefits.
The identified funds would assist RTC in construction of platforms
and shelters at bus stops for the Civis service. The shelters will
include off-board fare collection opportunities such as ticket vending
machines, a passenger waiting area, seating and shade structures, and
passenger amenities such as information kiosks.
The RTC is developing this BRT project to improve capacity,
increase efficiency, and meet the ever increasing needs for mass
transit in the Las Vegas Valley. BRT offers the capacity and other
transit advantages of light rail, at a significantly lower capital
cost, and this project will help demonstrate the viability of BRT as a
New Start solution. Given that the demand for New Start funds
nationwide far exceeds availability, cost effective options such as BRT
are important not just to the RTC, but to the overall Federal transit
program.
highway requests
The RTC is requesting $15 million in fiscal year 2003 Federal
Lands Highway Funding for an Upgrade project to the Southern Beltway
(I-215). The overall project boundaries are from Interstate 15 to
Stephanie Street in Henderson, Nevada. This project will be completed
in two phases, as outlined below.
The Southern Beltway serves the rapidly growing southeast area of
the Las Vegas Valley, including Henderson. Originally constructed as a
4-lane facility, the traffic volumes have increased well beyond the
Beltway's designed capacity. The facility has seen an increase in the
number of vehicles using it from about 23,000 daily trips when it
opened in 1997/98 to about 73,000 in the year 2000 (the last year of
available data). This represents an average annual increase in traffic
of about 55 percent, or about 4 percent per month. The automatic
traffic recorder on the Beltway showed that there were almost 83,000
vehicles a day using the facility in December, 2000. The constrained
capacity creates severe degradation in service, particularly during the
peak travel hours. At these times, there are about 40 percent more
people trying to use the facility than the two lanes in each direction
can accommodate.
The Southern Beltway Upgrade project from Pecos Road to Stephanie
Street consists of widening into the existing median to provide a third
travel lane in each direction. The existing twelve foot shoulder is
Portland Cement Concrete, and was constructed to serve as a future
travel lane. The identified project would utilize this shoulder and
pave the remaining twelve foot median to act as the new full width
inside the shoulder. In addition, auxiliary lanes would be constructed
between the existing interchanges at Pecos Road, Green Valley Parkway,
Valle Verde Drive and Stephanie Street. The improvements are necessary
to accommodate the existing traffic demand on this segment that
currently meets or exceeds the capacity of the roadway. The existing
improvements were constructed entirely with local funds. The project
cost for this segment is $5 million.
bus and bus facilities funding
The RTC is requesting $20 million in fiscal year 2003 bus
discretionary funds for land acquisition and construction costs for a
new Central City Transit Center (CCTC). The CCTC project will enhance
intermodal connections among bus, monorail, and intercity rail modes.
The project is a key component of the revitalization and redevelopment
of downtown Las Vegas.
The current Downtown Transportation Center, located at 300 North
Casino Center Boulevard is a major transfer point for many CAT routes.
However, the facility (built in 1983) was never envisioned for a
dynamic and growing mass transit system. There are currently 17 CAT
routes using this facility, as well as a City Trolley service and three
Charter bus companies. During the afternoon peak period, over 55
departures per hour are made out of this facility. Built on only three
(3) acres of land, the facility is simply undersized for the transit
service currently housed there. Additionally, the geographic and space
constraints eliminate any opportunities to enhance intermodal
connections and services.
With this in mind, the RTC has completed a feasibility study to
identify a potential site for a new Central City Transit Center. The
identified area encourages intermodal connectivity to high speed rail
(Amtrak), a New Start monorail project, the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
project identified above, as well as enhancing the passenger experience
for the regular CAT bus system, the City Trolley service, and local
charter services. The new area also provides enhanced access for non-
motorized transportation options (such as walking or biking) to major
local area attractions. Additionally, the development of the new CCTC
will provide transportation access to a currently undeveloped area in
the City of Las Vegas, that has been identified for the largest
redevelopment project in Southern Nevada. The availability of adequate
transportation options is critical to the success of this redevelopment
effort. The requested funds will allow the RTC to commence land
acquisition and construction of this major improvement to Intermodal
Transportation options.
conclusion
The Subcommittee has been very helpful in the past in recognizing
the ever increasing transit needs in Southern Nevada. To continue the
growth of the CAT system, and to facilitate the deployment of
innovative BRT and Monorail technology, the RTC requests that the
Subcommittee provide funding in the amount of $25 million in Section
5309 bus discretionary funds; $20 million in New Start Funding and $15
million in Federal Lands Highway funds. As described in this testimony,
these projects are critical components of the comprehensive development
of an integrated intermodal transportation system capable of meeting
the needs of the fastest growing city in the United States.
______
Prepared Statement of the Fleet Reserve Association
Certification of Non-receipt of Federal Funds
Pursuant to the requirements of House Rule XI, the Fleet Reserve
Association has not received any federal grant or contract during the
current fiscal year or either of the two previous fiscal years.
The Fleet Reserve Association
On behalf of the 140,000 members of The Fleet Reserve Association,
I thank you Mister Chairman and distinguished members of the
Subcommittee for the opportunity to submit the Association's views on
the fiscal year 2003 Coast Guard budget.
The Fleet Reserve Association (FRA) is a Congressionally Chartered,
non-profit organization, representing the interests of U.S. Navy,
Marine Corps, and Coast Guard personnel with regard to pay, health care
and other benefits.
The Association is the oldest and largest Association in the United
States representing enlisted men and women of the Sea Services whether
on active duty, in the Reserves, or retired. Established in 1924, FRA's
primary mission is to act as the premier `` watchdog'' organization for
maintaining and improving quality of life for Sea Service personnel. In
the past 5 years, for example, FRA led the effort to amend the
military's ``Redux'' retirement system for the better and provided a
pay study referenced by Congress in the adoption of pay reform for mid-
grade enlisted personnel in 2001, and subsequently by Congress in 2002
with regard to further revising the pay for all noncommissioned and
petty officers in grades E5 thru E9.
In 1996, FRA sought recognition for the arduous duties performed by
junior enlisted personnel serving aboard the Nation's naval vessels.
Sea pay was recommended by the Association only to have the proposal
turned down by the Navy. Last year, Congress gave the Navy and the
Coast Guard the authority to manage its sea pay programs, the amounts
paid to career personnel were increased and junior enlisted sailors
again became eligible for sea duty pay.
There are other issues and programs advocated by FRA over the past
years that are now a reality. TRICARE for Life is a major health care
enhancement championed by FRA and other member organizations of The
Military Coalition. (The Coalition is comprised of thirty-two military
and veterans' organizations representing over five million active duty,
Reserve, Guard, retired, and veterans, their families and survivors.)
FRA is the leading enlisted association in the Coalition and has the
distinction of holding two of the organization's six elected offices--
President of the Coalition Corporation, and the Administrator.
Additionally, three of nine Coalition committees are co-chaired by
members of the Association's legislative staff including Personnel/
Compensation/Commissary, Health Care, and Taxes/Social Security/
Medicare.
The Association sponsors annual scholarship and patriotic essay
competitions, and recognition programs honoring the Coast Guard
Enlisted Persons and Recruiters of the Year, the Navy Sailors and
Recruiters of the Year and the Marine Corps Recruiters and Drill
Instructors of the Year.
Introduction
The Fleet Reserve Association's mission is focused on quality of
life programs which are critically important to sustaining military
readiness and the War on Terrorism. As it has for many years, the
United States Coast Guard serves with distinction as the fifth branch
of our Nation's Armed Forces and as an integral component ensuring our
Nation's security.
Thanks to the heroic efforts of many Coast Guard personnel in the
aftermath of the September 11, 2001, and increasingly effective public
affairs initiatives, the American people have an increased awareness
of, and appreciation for the Coast Guard's multi-faceted and demanding
mission. FRA believes this is long over due.
Before addressing specific issues, the Association wishes to
acknowledge the tremendous support of this distinguished Subcommittee
for additional pay and benefit improvements enacted during the First
Session of the 107th Congress. Across the board and targeted pay
increases, higher housing allowances, reform of the PCS process and
increased funding for health care are significant improvements and
perceived as important recognition of the service and sacrifice of the
men and women serving in the Coast Guard, and those who've served in
the past.
FRA remains totally committed to ensuring Coast Guard parity with
all pay and benefits provided DOD uniformed personnel. The Association
notes with pleasure the increased funding levels authorized for key pay
and benefit programs in fiscal year 2002 and was especially pleased
that adequate resources were allocated for the implementation of sea
pay reform benefiting Coast Guard personnel during this year.
The Fiscal Year 2003 Budget
Regarding the Administration's fiscal year 2003 Budget, FRA first
draws your attention to the need for additional supplemental funding to
cover the costs of pay, health care and other benefit enhancements
enacted as part of the fiscal year 2002 National Defense Authorization
Act and implemented this year.
Half of these costs, totaling $21 million, were funded in the
supplemental legislation included as part of the fiscal year 2002
National Defense Appropriations Act enacted last fall. FRA understands
that Congress intends to soon authorize the remaining $21 million to
fund these programs for the second half of the fiscal year as part of
an emergency supplemental bill. The Association strongly supports this
initiative. Unfortunately, this action will serve as yet another
segment in the ongoing pattern of relying on supplemental
appropriations to adequately fund the all important quality of life
programs so important to the men and women serving in the United States
Coast Guard.
FRA is encouraged that the $7.1 billion fiscal year 2003 budget
proposal establishes accrual funding for health care and retirement
accounts and that the spending plan assumes enactment of the pending
U.S. Coast Guard Authorization Act (S. 951) which authorizes over 7,462
additional end strength billets.
The Association is pleased that full funding for pay increases,
health care and other benefit improvements is included in the
Administration's fiscal year 2003 Budget. The U.S. Coast Guard's budget
request includes operations funding of $4.6 billion, significantly
above the fiscal year 2002 budget of $3.3 billion, and a retired pay
account allocation of $736 million to cover the cost of implementing
accrual accounting procedures similar to the Department of Defense's.
The Reserve training budget totals $136 million to recruit, train,
and support a Coast Guard Selected Reserve Force of 9,000 personnel.
Training is essential to ensuring military readiness and fully funding
this account is very important because Reservists are increasingly
called upon to support the prosecution of the war effort. Due to
inadequate end strengths levels that are commensurate with increasing
operational commitments, all of the services must rely increasingly on
Reserve personnel to meet mission requirements.
Stretched to the Limit
The headline of a November 13, 2001 Washington Times opinion piece
reads ``Coast Guard more Important than Ever.'' FRA could not agree
more. The article by Christopher Lehman and Scott Truver offers a
sobering overview of the challenges facing the Coast Guard in this new
era of heightened national security. Other newspaper stories chronicle
the Coast Guard's operational challenges due to limited resources and
heightened security demands in the wake of the attacks on our Nation
last September.
In a January 25, 2002 speech in Portland, Maine, President George
W. Bush stated, ``I saw how the Coast Guard has responded after 9/11
and I know how important the Coast Guard is for the safety and security
and the well-being of our American citizens.'' He cited the rescue of
five fishermen from a 74-foot fishing vessel that sank in heavy seas
and noted that ``This story was repeated 4,000 times last year.'' He
further noted that Coast Guard men and women captured over 60 tons of
cocaine and responded to over 11,000 oil spills in 2001. These
statistics were compiled prior the terrorists' attacks and reflect
consistently impressive efforts and dedication to service of all Coast
Guard personnel.
President Bush also recognized the fact the Coast Guard men and
women are. ``Working around the globe with the Department of Defense.''
Because of the ``new normalcy'' requirements, Coast Guard people
are also being pushed to exhaustion by increased work requirements that
stretch thinly staffed units beyond their work limits and negatively
affect readiness. To meet the challenge approximately 2,900 Reservists
have been called to active duty, 10,000 vessels have been boarded, the
Coast Guard has launched the largest port security operation since WWII
and the service remains on a heightened state of alert at over 361
major ports. In addition, hundreds of cutters, aircraft and small boats
manned by thousands of USCG active duty and Reserve members are
guarding our coasts. Since last September 11, the USCG has conducted
over 30,000 port security patrols and over 3,000 air patrols. These are
impressive efforts contributing significantly to our enhanced security
B and they are accomplished by dedicated men and women totally
committed to serving our Nation.
As it has in the past, FRA strongly supports increasing end
strengths commensurate with these growing operational commitments. The
Association salutes the distinguished Subcommittee's leadership with
regard to the House adopting H.R. 3507, the Coast Guard Authorization
Act for 2001, while urging the Senate leaders to expeditiously bring
similar legislation (S. 951) to the floor for a vote by the full
Senate.
The Coast Guard has not had the benefit of an authorization act
since 1998. The Senate version of this legislation authorizes
significant end strength increases to 45,500. The legislation also
addresses quality of life enhancements including the authorization of
compensatory leave for members stationed at isolated duty stations, and
the extension of expired housing authorities to promote construction or
acquisition of much needed housing on or near Coast Guard units where
adequate, affordable housing may not be available.
Pay Comparability
FRA strongly supports the proposed 4.1 percent active duty pay
increase included in the Administration's budget and the pending plan
to again target career enlisted personnel for higher adjustments. The
Association is also encouraged that the Administration is requesting
$360 million for additional military pay in the DOD budget, however FRA
is concerned with commensurate funding in the Coast Guard budget to
cover this increase for its personnel.
Thanks to the strong support from the Administration and Congress,
significant progress is being made in closing the pay comparability gap
through 2006. The Association believes all personnel need and deserve
annual raises at least equal to private sector wage growth and
appreciates the continuing higher than ECI pay hikes authorized by
Congress and the targeted increases particularly for senior enlisted
personnel. These leaders are increasingly valuable due to their
seasoned experience, leadership, education, and advanced technical
skills. They also command high wages in the civilian market and often
express frustration regarding compressed pays at the senior enlisted
level (E-8 and E-9) as a lack of recognition and appreciation for their
roles as leaders and teachers.
Pay increases are important to all Coast Guard men and women and
convey a powerful message to service members about the importance and
value of their service to our country. However, at the end of the 2000-
2005 period, a pay gap in excess of 7 percent will still remain between
military and civilian pay levels and additional increases are needed to
close the gap.
Benefits Disparity
There are challenges regarding mandatory versus discretionary
funding for benefits paid to Coast Guard personnel. Along with its
sister services, the Coast Guard adjusts discretionary funding to best
address its particular needs. Members of the Coast Guard are authorized
to receive the same benefits as their DOD counterparts, however, the
lack of adequate funds may limit what they in fact receive.
The following list offers examples of the disparities between
benefits offered to DOD personnel and those offered to Coast Guard
members.
DOD & U.S. COAST GUARD--COMPARISON OF PERSONNEL INCENTIVES & BENEFITS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of
Item Defense U.S. Coast Guard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enlistment Bonuses.............. $2K to $20K. DOD $1K to $20K. USCG
is also combining cannot currently
enlistment afford to combine
bonuses and the enlistment
college fund bonus with the
resulting in a college fund;
maximum payment recruits must
of $70K. select one or the
other.
College Fund.................... $50K.............. $30K.
College Loan Payback............ $65K. DOD is Currently the USCG
combining the does not have
college loan legislative
payback with the authority to
enlistment bonus implement a
which results in program of this
a maximum payment nature.
of $85K.
Distance Learning............... Satellite based & Currently funding
web-based. a pilot project
aboard one CG
cutter.
Child Care Subsidies............ $3,588 per child.. $327 per child.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From this comparison, it is obvious that the Coast Guard faces
significant challenges in providing competitive incentives to attract
and retain an adequately trained work force. The childcare subsidy
disparity is a startling statistic and FRA notes that childcare needs
for Coast Guard personnel and their families are no less important than
the needs of their DOD service counterparts.
Housing Allowance (BAH)
FRA appreciates Congressional support for increased basic allowance
for housing (BAH) rates and enactment of a plan to eliminate average
out of pocket housing costs by 2006. Adequate funds are required in the
Coast Guard budget to cover these improvements. The Association also
strongly supports an increase of $7 million for housing at various
Coast Guard stations.
Unlike the other services, the Coast Guard relies on leased housing
for its personnel in some duty locations and funding for this program
must be sustained. This reliance is due to the unavailability of
military housing at or near Coast Guard duty stations, many of which
are located in high-cost resort areas along our coasts. Because of
these challenges, FRA advocates an accelerated implementation of the
elimination of average out of pocket housing costs to ease the
financial impact imposed on many Coast Guard personnel and their
families.
Health Care
A top FRA priority is access to quality and affordable health care
for all beneficiaries including U.S. Coast Guard personnel and
retirees. The Association appreciates TRICARE improvements for active
duty personnel including enhanced claims processing, implementation of
TRICARE Prime Remote for dependents, and mileage reimbursement for
specialty care for all TRICARE Prime beneficiaries including active
duty personnel and enrolled retirees.
Major enhancements were also enacted last year for retirees,
including an expanded pharmacy benefit for Medicare-eligibles along
with TRICARE For Life that offers second payer coverage to Medicare for
older retirees. These are major improvements and recognition of the
government's past commitments of health care for life for those who
serve careers in the uniformed services.
FRA offers thanks to members of the Subcommittee for supporting
these initiatives, while reminding each member of the panel of the
importance of continued full funding (to include both mandatory and
discretionary requirements) for these important programs.
Regarding collaborative efforts between DOD and the Department of
Veterans Affairs, FRA strongly supports sharing agreements and
partnering initiatives between the two systems that serve different
beneficiary groups, but only if those efforts would enhance or maintain
access to quality health care for the beneficiaries of each of the
departments. Although this distinguished panel does not have
jurisdiction over these issues, the Association believes that it's
important to state its position and advise you of the ongoing work of
the President's Task Force to Improve Health Care for Our Nation's
Veterans.
Other health care concerns include providing adequate health care
coverage via a ``safety net'' for Coast Guard Reservists and their
families in the wake of call ups since last September; providing
TRICARE Prime Remote coverage to family members who are unable to
reside with the service member; a waiver of the Medicare Part B penalty
for older retirees who reached age 65 prior to October 1, 2001, and
increasing the number of TRICARE providers.
Recruiting And Retention
There is an urgent need for the Coast Guard to recruit and retain
adequate numbers of personnel to sustain the service's multi-faceted
mission requirements. As discussed above, pending legislation will
authorize significant end strength increases over the next three years
and these additions will require adequately staffed and funded
recruiting offices with associated support resources.
Now more than ever senior petty officers are needed to guide, lead,
teach, train, counsel, and inspire their junior charges and do likewise
for young men and women entering the officer ranks. These petty
officers also replace officers in positions of command and, when called
upon, change their stripes for bars during national emergencies. FRA
notes with pride the increasing responsibilities shouldered so
effectively by the Coast Guard's senior enlisted personnel and takes
great pride in representing their interests on quality of life issues
on Capitol Hill.
The Coast Guard is meeting its recruiting and retention goals
thanks in part to the increased number of recruiters and infusion of
additional advertising funds in recent years. However, the Coast Guard
is challenged to maintain adequate numbers of qualified personnel in
key job specialties. The service must be especially competitive for
personnel with these skills because they see jobs in the private sector
that offer better hours, higher wages and much less stress
Conclusion
As you know, the Coast Guard provides tremendous service to our
Nation and is integral to our homeland security. Appropriations for the
Coast Guard generate from four to five times the return on each dollar
invested. The broad range of services and support provided by the Coast
Guard and its personnel generally go unnoticed until there is a major
disaster or national emergency such as the terrorists attacks of last
September.
As noted by President Bush in the speech cited above, ``The Coast
Guard has a vital and significant mission. And, therefore, the budget
that I send to the United States Congress will have the largest
increase in spending for the Coast Guard in our nation's history.'' FRA
strongly supports the President's budget request and urges this
distinguished Subcommittee to do likewise.
The Coast Guard is always there, and true to its motto of Semper
Paratus B always ready. Please ensure adequate funding for the
personnel programs discussed above to ensure parity with benefits and
quality of life programs offered by the Department of Defense.
Thank you again for the opportunity to submit the Association's
views and for your strong commitment and continuing support of the men
and women serving so magnificently in the United States Coast Guard.
______
Prepared Statement of the University Corporation for Atmospheric
Research
On behalf of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
(UCAR) and the university community involved in weather and climate
research and related education, training and support activities, I
submit this written testimony for the record of the Senate Committee on
Appropriations, Subcommittee on Transportation.
UCAR is a consortium of 66 universities that manages and operates
the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and additional
research, education, training, and research applications programs in
the atmospheric and related sciences. The UCAR mission is to support,
enhance, and extend the research and education capabilities of the
university community, nationally and internationally; to understand the
behavior of the atmosphere and related systems and the global
environment; and to foster the transfer of knowledge and technology for
the betterment of life on earth. In addition to its member
universities, UCAR has formal relationships with approximately 100
additional undergraduate and graduate schools including several
historically black and minority-serving institutions, and 40
international universities and laboratories. UCAR is supported by the
National Science Foundation (NSF) and other Federal agencies including
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
The fiscal year 2003 budget request for the FAA should support the
Administration's and the country's commitment to a safe, efficient, and
modern aviation system. Specific agency goals include an 80 percent
reduction in the fatal accident rate on U.S. carriers by 2007 and the
upgrading of the air traffic control system. While the rate of
commercial aviation accidents is very low worldwide, recent dramatic
increases in air traffic (with the exception of the months following
September 11) have resulted in an increase in the number of accidents.
If the current rate of increase were to stay constant over the next 15
years, the result will be an average of 50 catastrophic accidents per
year--almost one per week. As passenger traffic increases since the
events of September 11, it is imperative that this country not lose
sight of the FAA Safer Skies goals and that the proposed request of
$4.6 billion for the FAA's primary mission of safety in the skies and
on the ground at airports be applied wisely.
According to the National Transportation Safety Board,
approximately 30 percent of all aviation accidents, and 37 percent of
the fatal accidents, are weather related. Aviation weather hazards
include low cloud ceilings and visibility; airframe icing, both on the
ground in the airport terminal area and while airborne; runway
contamination by ice, snow, and water; and thunderstorms and convective
activity which produces low-altitude windshear, strong and gusty winds,
heavy rains, hail, and lightning. (As the 1999 Little Rock accident
that resulted in 11 fatalities demonstrates, violent thunderstorms
continue to be among the most dangerous weather phenomena for all
classes of aviation.)
Regarding the fiscal year 2003 request for the FAA, I would like to
comment on accounts related to aviation weather research that fund the
collaborative work of researchers in universities and Federal
laboratories. These accounts are relatively small in dollar amounts,
but the work is potentially life-saving for our nation's pilots and
passengers.
Facilities and Equipment
Within the Facilities and Equipment section of the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) budget, please add $5.0 million for development
and implementation of a terrain-induced windshear alert system. This
pilot project would be done in the Juneau, Alaska, area because of the
complex terrain surrounding the airport. The technology developed could
lead to a National Terrain-Induced Windshear and Turbulence Alerting
System that would be installed in airports nation-wide to help prevent
crashes like the one that occurred in 1991 on approach to the Colorado
Springs Airport. Work would include verifying the prototype alert
system and transferring the technology to FAA systems developers. I
urge the Committee to support the request of $2.99 billion for
Facilities and Equipment in fiscal year 2003, and to add $5.0 million
to support the development and implementation of a terrain-induced,
windshear alert system.
Research, Engineering and Development (RE&D)--Weather Program
The Weather Program conducts applied weather research to solve
operational aviation problems. In collaboration with the National
Weather Service, the FAA intends to provide more accurate, accessible
and efficient weather forecasts and severe weather warnings through the
development of new technology, better delivery mechanisms, and superior
aviation weather instruction materials. In addition, upgrades will be
made to wake turbulence standards and procedures. (Wake turbulence is
likely to have been a major contributing factor to the November
commercial airline crash in New York.) These improvements will make
aviation safer, improve flight planning, and increase air traffic
controller and pilot decision-making skills regarding interpretation of
weather forecast data. In order to allow critical research achievements
to be applied quickly to operations, I would like to make the following
recommendations regarding the two Weather Program accounts:
Weather Program--Safety
I urge the Committee to support the fiscal year 2003 Budget Request
of $19.4 million for the Weather Program Safety account, and to add
$2.0 million (for a total of $21.4 million) in order to initiate two
life-saving programs:
The National Terrain-Induced Windshear and Turbulence Alerting
System (mentioned above) that would be installed in airports throughout
the nation, and
The Gravity Wave Research Program to develop a technique for
detecting and alerting pilots to a unique set of extremely dangerous
low-level wind conditions that precede certain thunderstorms. These
conditions occur at and around a number of airports in the country and
are of extreme danger to aircraft, particularly during take-off and
landing.
Weather Program--Efficiency
The Budget Request for the Weather Program Efficiency account is
decreased in fiscal year 2003 by $806,000. I urge the Committee to
support the life-saving work of the Weather Program Efficiency account
by appropriating the requested $9.1 million and adding $1.5 million
(for a total of $10.6 million) to initiate a Terminal Area High-
Resolution Winds Product that would give air traffic controllers a
model depiction of wind location near airports based on special
processing of data from NEXRAD radars. This addition to the request
would mean that the account would receive only a 0.07 percent increase
over fiscal year 2002. If possible, please consider appropriating the
request plus inflation in addition to the add-on.
Given past experience with the Weather Program section of the
budget, I ask that you oppose any attempt to reallocate weather
research funding within this account. The research community receives
funding from the R&D budget to do work that is critical to the safety
of U.S. citizens including turbulence forecasting, ceiling and
visibility forecasting, thunderstorm and winter storm forecasting, and
prediction of airborne icing. Any reallocation of funds in this line
jeopardizes that life-saving work.
On behalf of UCAR, as well as all U.S. citizens who take to the
skies, I want to thank the Committee for the important work you do for
this country's scientific research, training, and technology transfer.
We appreciate your attention to the recommendations of our community
concerning the fiscal year 2003 FAA budget and we appreciate your
concern for safety within the nation's aviation systems, particularly
during this extraordinary time in our nation's history.
______
Prepared Statement of the Upper Mississippi River Basin Association
The Upper Mississippi River Basin Association (UMRBA) is the
organization created in 1981 by the Governors of Illinois, Iowa,
Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin to serve as a forum for coordinating
the five states' river-related programs and policies and for
collaborating with Federal agencies on regional water resource issues.
As such, the UMRBA has an interest in the budget for the U.S. Coast
Guard.
In the current national security environment, it has become more
important than ever to provide the Coast Guard with the resources it
needs to fulfill its multiple missions. Clearly the Coast Guard has
vital new functions specifically related to homeland security, and
these must be adequately funded. But perhaps even more significant are
the ways in which the Coast Guard's other traditional missions can
contribute to enhanced security while simultaneously supporting
navigation safety and environmental protection. This includes
activities such as aids to navigation, vessel and facility inspections,
emergency response, and mariner licensing. Nowhere are these services
more important than on the Upper Mississippi River System, which
Congress has designated as a nationally significant commercial
navigation system and a nationally significant ecosystem. The Coast
Guard must be adequately funded if the river is to continue to serve
both of these important functions.
Operating Expenses
Of continuing concern to the UMRBA is funding for the Coast Guard's
Operating Expenses account. The President's fiscal year 2003 budget
proposal includes $4.635 billion for this account, an increase of 19
percent from the fiscal year 2002 enacted level. However, this increase
would be targeted almost entirely to homeland security projects and
personnel-related costs, including pay raises and retirement funding.
While details concerning the security projects are not available, some
will undoubtedly help enhance other Coast Guard missions. However, it
is also true that there will be increased demands on these other
mission areas to support security operations.
Congress must not lose sight of the fact that the Operating
Expenses account funds activities that are critical to the safe,
efficient operation of the Upper Mississippi River and the rest of the
inland river system. Through these missions, the Coast Guard maintains
navigation channel markers, regulates a wide range of commercial
vessels in the interest of crew and public safety, and responds to
spills and other incidents. In calendar year 1999, the Coast Guard's
Upper Mississippi River System units inspected 644 vessels; responded
to 100 oil spills; and managed 401 other reportable marine casualties,
including groundings, injuries, and vessel breakaways. These numbers
speak to the Coast Guard's vital role in establishing and enforcing
standards, maintaining navigation aids, and responding to various
incidents. The beneficiaries include not only commercial vessel
operators, but also recreational boaters; farmers and others who ship
materials by barge; and the region's citizens, who benefit enormously
from the river as a nationally significant economic and environmental
resource.
Recent years have brought a number of changes to the way the Coast
Guard operates on the inland river system, including elimination of the
Second District; closure of the Director of Western Rivers Office;
decommissioning the Sumac, which was the largest buoy tender on the
Upper Mississippi River; and staff reductions. The states understand
that these decisions were driven by the need for the Coast Guard to
operate as efficiently as possible, and the states support that goal.
However, such changes must be carefully considered and their effects
monitored, particularly in light of the increased demands that we are
now placing on the personnel and assets that remain in the region. The
UMRBA is quite concerned that staff reductions and resource constraints
have combined to impair the Coast Guard's ability to serve as an
effective, proactive partner.
In recent years, the Coast Guard's capacity to participate in
important regional initiatives has been limited. Moreover, increased
fuel prices and other factors have constrained the Coast Guard's
ability to do even routine work, thus raising public safety concerns.
Now we are learning that increased security demands are reducing the
staff assigned to vessel inspections and limiting the Coast Guard's
investigation of reported spills. Sending a single person to conduct
vessel inspections reduces the rigor of those inspections, and, in a
worst case scenario, potentially puts the inspector at risk. Similarly,
electing not to respond to reports of small spills means some of these
spills will go uninvestigated and puts increased demands on local
officials who do not have the Coast Guard's expertise or resources.
Moreover, it could result in costly delays should a spill turn out to
be considerably larger than first reported. While everyone recognizes
the need to adjust to our new security environment, it is essential for
the Coast Guard to retain the capacity to perform its traditional
missions on the Upper Mississippi River. Temporary adjustments have
been necessary as the Coast Guard strives to meet immediate needs, but
these should not become long term standard operating procedures. Toward
that end, the UMRBA supports the President's fiscal year 2003 budget
request for the Coast Guard's Operating Expenses account and urges
Congress to ensure that sufficient resources from within this account
are allocated to the Coast Guard's inland river work.
Navigation Fees
The UMRBA continues to oppose fees for navigation assistance
services, which have been proposed frequently in previous years. Last
year, the Administration clearly stated its opposition to such fees,
while this year's budget proposal appears to be silent on the matter.
The nation's navigable waterways are a critical part of our
transportation infrastructure, just as is the national highway system.
Providing the basic services required to operate that infrastructure
safely is a fundamental role of government. The benefits of buoy
placement and maintenance, vessel traffic services, radio and satellite
navigation systems, and waterways regulation do not accrue only to the
commercial operators who would be subject to such fees. Recreational
boaters also directly use these services. Moreover, municipal and
industrial water intake operators, farmers and other shippers,
consumers, the river's natural resources, and citizens along the river
all benefit indirectly from the contributions that these Coast Guard
services make to the safe, efficient operation of the navigation
system. One group simply should not be required to pay the costs of
services whose real benefits are distributed so broadly.
Coast Guard Reserve
Several other Coast Guard missions and programs are also important
to the Upper Mississippi River states. Unfortunately, devastating
floods in several recent years have given many of this region's
citizens direct personal experience with the importance of the Coast
Guard's reservists. Reserve forces are a critical part of the Coast
Guard's ability to respond effectively to natural disasters and other
large-scale events. In addition, reservists perform key staff functions
at many of the marine safety detachments on the inland rivers. The role
of reservists in the region has become all the more crucial as the
detachments' active duty staffing levels have been reduced and their
security-related activities have increased. The UMRBA supports the
President's request of $113 million for the Coast Guard Reserve.
Boating Safety Grants
In addition, the Coast Guard's boating safety grants to the states
have a proven record of success. The Upper Mississippi is a river where
all types of recreational craft routinely operate in the vicinity of
15-barge tows, making boating safety all the more important. As levels
of both recreational and commercial traffic continue to grow, so too
does the potential for user conflicts. This is particularly true with
major events, such as the upcoming commemoration of the Lewis and Clark
expedition, which is expected to draw large numbers of boaters to the
St. Louis area. Boat safety training and law enforcement are key
elements of prevention. Unfortunately, this year the Coast Guard
continued its long-standing practice of requesting only $59 million for
state boat safety grants. The UMRBA urges Congress to appropriate the
full authorized amount of $70 million to the Boat Safety account to
support the states in this important mission.
LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS
----------
Page
American Passenger Rail Coalition, prepared statement............ 177
American Public Transportation Association, prepared statement... 179
Bennett, Senator Robert F., U.S. Senator from Utah, remarks by... 163
Bond, Senator Christopher S., U.S. Senator from Missouri,
statement of................................................... 3
Byrd, Senator Robert C., U.S. Senator from West Virginia:
Prepared statement........................................... 16
Questions submitted by.....................................167, 175
Statement of................................................. 14
Campbell, Senator Ben Nighthorse, U.S. Senator from Colorado:
Prepared statement........................................... 19
Questions submitted by.....................................174, 181
Statement of................................................. 139
Chatham Area Transit, prepared statement......................... 183
City of Newark, New Jersey, prepared statement................... 183
Clapp, Joseph, Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, Department of Transportation................... 93
Coalition of Northeastern Governors (CONEG), prepared statement.. 185
Durbin, Senator Richard J., U. S. Senator from Illinois, prepared
state-
ments..........................................................17, 52
Engleman, Ellen, Administrator, Research and Special Programs
Administration, Department of Transportation................... 93
Fleet Reserve Association, prepared statement.................... 218
Garvey, Hon. Jane F., Administrator, Federal Aviation
Administration, Department of Transportation:
Prepared statement........................................... 143
Statement of................................................. 133
Illinois Department of Transportation, prepared statement........ 186
Jackson, Hon. Michael, Deputy Secretary, Department of
Transportation, statements of.................................. 1, 4
Kohl, Senator Herb, U.S. Senator from Wisconsin:
Prepared statements..........................................51, 16
Questions submitted by.....................................174, 181
Leahy, Senator Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, prepared
state-
ment........................................................... 19
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA),
prepared statement............................................. 194
Loy, Admiral James M., Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, Department
of Transportation:
Prepared statement........................................... 55
Statements of................................................45, 52
MaGaw, Hon. John, Under Secretary of Transportation for Security,
Department of Transportation................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 99
Statement of................................................. 93
McMahon, Captain Christopher, Maritime Administration, Department
of Transportation.............................................. 93
Mead, Hon. Kenneth M., Inspector General, Department of
Transportation................................................. 45
Prepared statement........................................... 61
Statement of................................................. 58
Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA), prepared
state-
ment........................................................... 196
Mikulski, Senator Barbara A., U.S. Senator from Maryland:
Prepared statement........................................... 51
Questions submitted by.....................................170, 177
Statement of................................................. 68
Murray, Senator Patty, U.S. Senator from Washington, opening
state-
ments..................................................1, 45, 93, 133
National Association of Railroad Passengers, prepared statement.. 198
National Congress of American Indians, prepared statement........ 202
New York State Police, prepared statement........................ 203
Pluta, Rear Admiral Paul, Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety
and Environmental Protection, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation................................................. 93
Rail Travel Center, prepared statement........................... 209
Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada, prepared
statement...................................................... 215
Reid, Senator Harry, U.S. Senator from Nevada:
Prepared statement........................................... 140
Questions submitted by.....................................172, 179
Rutter, Allan, Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration,
Department of Transportation................................... 93
Shelby, Senator Richard C., U.S. Senator from Alabama:
Prepared statement........................................... 137
Statements of.......................................11, 47, 96, 135
Stevens, Senator Ted, U.S. Senator from Alaska, statements of...67, 146
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, prepared
statement...................................................... 222
Upper Mississippi River Basin Association, prepared statement.... 223
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Page
Airport:
Parking restrictions......................................... 38
Passenger screening.......................................... 22
Contracts................................................32, 36
American Airlines/TWA work force, integration of................. 26
AMTRAK........................................................... 17
Funding...................................................... 21
Aviation:
And surface transportation safety............................ 9
Incident..................................................... 11
Loan guarantees.............................................. 27
Security.....................................................18, 23
General..................................................32, 33
Border control agency, proposed.................................. 41
Cargo security................................................... 40
Chicago aviation capacity expansion.............................. 18
Coast Guard...................................................... 6
Capital plan................................................. 23
Explosive detection systems (EDS)................................29, 34
Contracts.................................................... 30
Cost of equipment............................................ 31
FAA capital program.............................................. 25
Federal Transit Administration................................... 7
Highway:
Funding...................................................6, 20, 35
Funds........................................................ 18
Safety:
Goals.................................................... 29
Program...................................................... 28
Highways......................................................... 9
Homeland security--TSA and the Coast Guard....................... 8
MAGLEV and high-speed rail....................................... 34
Motor carrier safety............................................. 40
National distress and response system............................ 43
Navigation user fee.............................................. 39
Other programs................................................... 10
Pennsylvania, transportation priorities in....................... 36
Pipeline security................................................ 40
Public and rail transportation................................... 7
Public transportation and rail................................... 10
Revenue aligned budget authority................................. 24
Safety funding................................................... 6
Transportation Security Administration...........................
Associate Under Secretaries.................................. 43
Budget....................................................... 42
Unobligated highway trust fund balances.......................... 25
Federal Aviation Administration
A more business-like approach.................................... 146
Additional committee questions................................... 167
AIP, use of for security:
Costs......................................................149, 150
Expenditures................................................. 150
Air traffic control facilities, security of...................... 147
Air transportation oversight system (ATOS)....................... 158
Airspace, violation of restricted................................ 157
ASR-11:
Certification of............................................. 156
Wide area augmentation system (WAAS) and..................... 153
Centennial Airport, scheduled passenger service at............... 157
Chartered aircraft, security for................................. 154
Chicago's O'Hare Airport, pending legislation on................. 163
Commercial airplane certification process........................ 165
Competitive procurement.......................................... 166
Cost control..................................................... 152
Emergency information dissemination.............................. 174
En route automation modernization program........................ 151
Environmental streamlining....................................... 151
FAA:
Assistance to airlines with financial difficulty............. 160
Management................................................... 142
Financing........................................................ 143
Fixed based operations (FBOs).................................... 156
Flight 587 accident.............................................. 155
Growth, preparing for............................................ 145
Montgomery County, MD:
Airport approaches over...................................... 170
Noise abatement in........................................... 170
National Transportation Safety Board............................. 155
Oceanic air traffic control, technology for...................... 152
Olympics, FAA'S performance at the............................... 164
Operational evolution plan....................................... 141
Personnel reform, Senate directive on............................ 167
Radars, primary long-range....................................... 171
Runways, time to construct....................................... 152
Safety........................................................... 142
And security, balancing...................................... 161
Issues, impact of shortfall on............................... 148
Record, maintaining our...................................... 144
Staffing, hiring of.......................................... 159
Salt Lake City, radar for........................................ 164
St. George Regional Airport...................................... 164
Standard terminal automation replacement system (STARS)........161, 171
At Philadelphia Airport...................................... 174
Deployment schedule.......................................... 172
Summer traffic and overtime costs................................ 149
Supplemental request, funding source for......................... 148
Technology, decisions on......................................... 162
Transition to TSA................................................ 141
Unanticipated operations costs................................... 147
Security Challenges for Transportation of Cargo
Administrative Procedures Act.................................... 128
Advanced notice of arrival requirements.......................... 126
Airports, 300-foot perimeter rule at............................. 121
Aviation security................................................ 129
Cargo security in the:
Maritime sector.............................................. 102
Motor carrier sector......................................... 103
Rail sector.................................................. 104
Communications between agencies.................................. 123
Container:
Examination program, port of origin.......................... 127
Inspection................................................... 125
Security..................................................... 125
Customer service................................................. 132
Driver awareness and security.................................... 113
Explosives detection systems..............................122, 129, 131
Explosives trace detection system................................ 121
Foreign vessels entering the United States, risk of.............. 127
Hazard materials action group.................................... 115
Hazardous materials:
Direct action group.......................................... 107
Exemption of certain......................................... 114
Identifying.................................................. 111
In transportation and pipeline systems....................... 105
Rulemaking................................................... 108
Shipments.................................................... 110
Transportation of............................................ 109
Maritime vulnerability........................................... 118
National risk assessment......................................... 115
Natural gas pipelines............................................ 128
Pipeline vulnerability........................................... 120
Safety and security, balance..................................... 111
Security managers, hiring of Federal............................. 130
Shipper information.............................................. 120
Smart border..................................................... 124
Technology, paying for........................................... 112
Threat conditions................................................ 122
Transportation Information Operations Center (TIOC).............. 124
Transportation:
Security..................................................... 116
Vulnerabilities.............................................. 117
U.S. Coast Guard
Acquisition, construction, and improvements budget provides a
significant funding increase for NDS and Deepwater............. 65
Additional committee questions................................... 89
Burlington, Vermont breakwater................................... 91
C-130 aircraft................................................... 73
Capital:
Coast Guard:
Budget constraints........................................... 80
Budget request represents a 27.6 percent increase............ 63
Combining with other agencies................................ 87
Fiscal year 2003 budget seeks to balance current priorities
with multiple missions..................................... 63
Funding...................................................... 45
Homeland security role....................................... 47
New normalcy................................................. 71
New security teams........................................... 86
Plan......................................................... 49
Recruiting and reinlistment.................................. 74
17th district................................................ 72
Status of traditional missions............................... 71
Traditional missions......................................... 46
Deepwater........................................................ 50
Benefits of system acquisition approach...................... 90
Benefits of the integrated system project.................... 89
Integrated................................................... 54
Procurement.............................................. 48
Operational capability improvements.......................... 90
Procurement strategy......................................... 76
Uncertainties with the project should be resolved this year.. 66
Fiscal year 2003 funding challenges.............................. 45
Future, shaping our.............................................. 58
Maritime security................................................ 53
National distress and response modernization..................... 60
National distress modernization.................................. 54
National distress system.........................................47, 59
Audit........................................................ 78
Project is likely to experience cost growth.................. 65
Navy security initiatives........................................ 83
Port security challenges......................................... 85
Readiness, restoring our......................................... 57
Reserve recall................................................... 69
Search and rescue................................................ 59
Enhancements................................................. 82
Program...................................................... 54
Stations, operating tempo of................................. 69
Small boat station:
Audits....................................................... 70
Search and rescue program, fiscal year 2003 budget continues
efforts to address deficiencies in the..................... 64
Supplemental funding............................................. 53
Transforming our organization.................................... 56
Vessel tracking system........................................... 89
-