Senator Jack Reed's Statement on Justice Sandra Day O'Connor

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006 -- (Senate - July 13, 2005)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I would like to spend a few moments talking about an issue of great concern, and that is transit security. I know my colleagues are working as we speak. I will be working with them--the Senator from New Hampshire; the Senator from West Virginia; my colleague, Senator Shelby from Alabama--to raise the amount of resources devoted to transit security. The sticking point at the moment is how much we can raise these funds. I have urged a significant increase because of the significant threat.

We were all shocked last Thursday when we became aware of the news that 52 innocent transit riders in London were killed and over 700 injured in a series of cowardly attacks in the heart of London on their transit system, both on their underground system and their aboveground bus system. This horrific attack was reminiscent of other attacks in Madrid, Moscow, Israel, and elsewhere. All these attacks are specifically targeted to public transportation. We know this is a target for terrorists. We also understand that our system in the United States is still vulnerable to those types of attacks.

Every workday, 14 million Americans take a train or a bus. To put that in perspective, that is roughly 28 times the population of the State of Wyoming. Each and every day these 14 million Americans get on a bus or take a metro subway to work and to other necessary obligations and appointments. We know, quite clearly, that these transit systems are the prime target of terrorists. Subways, light rail, buses, and ferries are designed for easy access and to move large numbers of people efficiently. As a result, they do not have all the panoplies today of protection that you see at airline terminals, for example.

The facts are clear. There have already been numerous attacks on transit. We have 6,000 transit systems in the United States, with 14 million riders every workday. I do not think anyone could disagree with those facts or disagree with the fact that we have to do more to harden and protect our transit systems.

Yet the Federal Government's response to these facts has been underwhelming at best. In contrast to aviation, where we have invested $9 in security improvements per passenger, to date we have invested roughly $0.006 per passenger, a little over half a cent, to protect transit passengers throughout the country.

Now, I think we have to do much better. Perhaps we can never reach the level of protection for airlines because of the nature of that process--we can put screening devices in terminals; we can have elaborate followthrough in terms of passenger lists and identifying who is getting on which aircraft--but we have to do more in public transit. That is a consensus, a conclusion, I hope we all reach. Again, I think the debate today and tomorrow will be about how much we can do.

Now, I will make the case we have to do much more. I am working with my colleagues. I hope we can achieve a sufficient level of investment in transit security that is commensurate with the threat that has materialized just a few days ago, and, unfortunately, is likely to materialize again here or across the globe.

Now, after September 11, when I was serving as chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation, I held a hearing on the topic of transit security. At that time it was clear that we needed to do more than simply rely on the Federal Transit Administration, whose expertise is building systems, not essentially making them secure. Their efforts were commendable but very limited. They were reviewing security procedures. They were trying to disseminate information. But they were not able to because of their expertise as well as because of the resources needed to go in and start making significant capital improvements, supporting operational changes, doing all those things that are absolutely key to protecting our security systems, our transit systems.

After the hearing, Senator Sarbanes and I asked the General Accounting Office to do a study on transit security. That report was completed in 2002. They found that one-third of all terrorist attacks throughout the world were directed against transit. Yet we have nowhere committed the resources commensurate with that level of activity. And even more telling was the GAO's conclusion that, in their words, ``insufficient funding is the most significant obstacle agencies face in trying to make their systems more safe and secure.''

Typically, in the United States, transit systems are local systems. They depend upon riders' fares, local and State subsidies, and all of these sources are highly constrained in terms of coming up with the extra dollars to ensure protection of the system. Because of these conclusions from the GAO report, from our hearings, Senator Sarbanes and I have come to the floor on several occasions to argue for additional funding. We have done this with respect to supplemental appropriations bills. We have done it with respect to other Department of Homeland Security appropriations bills. And indeed, we also tried to suggest increased funding during the National Intelligence Reform Act debate.

I have been pleased to work with many colleagues, particularly Senator Shelby, chairman of the Banking Committee. Last year we were able to pass authorizing legislation in the Senate that would have created a threat-based transit security policy, along with authorizing $3.5 billion to help transit systems deter, detect, and respond to terrorist attacks. While the Senate did its part in passing the legislation, regrettably it was not passed by the House, nor was it supported with the kind of energy and enthusiasm by the administration which is so critical to achieving the objective of improved transit security. We are here again today on this legislation, in the wake of London, arguing for additional resources so that we can meet this threat to our transit systems.

There are some who might oppose these efforts. They might say it is too much money. Frankly, when you look at what has to be done--6,000 transit systems--when you look at the amount of training, the amount of capital equipment--just in terms of communications, for example--that is a huge number. And when you measure that with the threat--a third of all terrorist attacks over the last several decades have been directed at transit, and we have seen it in Madrid, in London, in Moscow, in Tokyo, where a Japanese fanatical group attempted to disperse a chemical agent in the tunnels--the threat is there; the resources are not.

Since 1992, the Federal Government actually has invested $68 billion to construct transit systems, but we haven't yet been able to commit ourselves to protecting those systems adequately. It has been estimated that roughly $6 million is necessary to provide the kind of protection that at least provides a minimal level of protection. These investments range from fencing to high-tech explosive detection systems, to communication upgrades. All of these things could be put in place, enhancing significantly the security of our systems.

In the wake of London, in the wake of Madrid, in the wake of the transit attacks in Russia, I don't think it is too much to ask to spend 12 cents per transit passenger, as some amendments have proposed, to protect them.

I have also heard that we should direct all of our efforts to threat-based approaches--don't single out transit, don't single out aviation, any particular mode of transportation or infrastructure. But frankly, the attractiveness--and I say this with regret--of transit to terrorists as a target is so compelling that this argument also does not hold water.

I also hope that we can continue to support these efforts, understanding that the primary responsibility is local. These systems are local or regional. The States and the localities have an obligation. But the reality is--and I don't think I have to spend too much time saying this--most transit systems are already just scraping by in terms of keeping their ridership up, making sure fares are affordable, making sure that they can make improvements in their basic rolling stock and facilities. These additional resources for security properly could be supported by the Federal Government.

We also authorized and created a few years ago the Department of Homeland Security. It is the appropriations for that Department we are discussing today. With respect to that Department, there was an acknowledgment that the Federal Government was stepping up to the issue of protecting all of our vital infrastructure, including transit, that we do have an obligation. We have assumed that obligation with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and other steps to protect all of our vital infrastructure. Indeed, our situation with respect to transit is one that cries out for additional resources.

The President just ordered, in the wake of London, our transit systems to go to alert level orange. The threat is there. I hope our efforts over today and tomorrow will not only recognize this threat but match it with commensurate resources so that we can begin to seriously protect our transit systems and our riders.

One other point, too. Our transit systems--buses, subways--are integral parts of our economy. That is one reason why they are so attractive to terrorists. The attack in London was planned so that the bombs would go off right in the midst of the financial district, not only with the intent to cause the loss of life, the symbolic and psychological horror of such a dastardly act, but also to cripple the economy. If a successful attack is conducted against a transit system in a major city, it will not be measured just in terms of casualties but also in potentially huge economic losses. Our efforts today are not only sensible because of the threat, sensible because of the need to protect Americans in areas where they are vulnerable, but to avoid the kind of economic chaos that could result from a successful attack against transit.

I hope in the next few hours we can come together with support for these efforts. I know Senators BYRD and GREGG, SHELBY and SARBANES, and others, are working toward that end so we can come up with sufficient resources to meet this great threat.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov