Rogers Opening Statement at Homeland Security Hearing

Rogers Opening Statement at Homeland Security Hearing

Witness: TSA Assistant Secretary David Stone

Good afternoon. I would like to welcome Admiral David Stone, Assistant Secretary for the Transportation Security Administration as he presents his fiscal year 2006 budget request.

In total, TSA is requesting $5.6 billion, which is an increase of $156 million above the 2005 level. I am pleased to see several key initiatives contained within this budget request, such as:

$250 million for aviation security capital projects, largely to fund 8 Letters of Intent to move explosive detection machines out of an airport's busy lobby and in line with the airport's baggage systems;

$72 million for emerging checkpoint technologies such as document scanners, backscatter machines, and improved trace technologies, so that we can better identify weapons and explosives; and $6 million to monitor and inspect the security of domestic and foreign repair stations.

I am also happy to note that TSA does not plan on employing more than 45,000 screeners in 2006. In the future, I am hopeful that instead of hiring more screeners to address TSA's increasing workload challenges that you will aggressively deploy cutting edge technologies to do the same work.

However, there are many items proposed within the 2006 budget that cause me serious heartburn. In fact, I must point out that many of these issues are the very same ones we raised with TSA last year. Some glaring examples include:

Flatlining the funding for air cargo security program at $40 million. Last year, Congress directed TSA to step up its air cargo security efforts, but that does not yet seem to be happening. There appear to be no new initiatives in this critical area even though TSA will increase the percent of cargo screened and plans to finalize a new rule to strengthen the known shipper and freight forwarder program in the summer of 2005.

Transferring research and development activities from TSA to the Science and Technology Directorate. It is unclear if any of the ongoing air cargo research and development activities that Congress has directed you to aggressively pursue over the last two years will be continuing. These new technologies are how we will be able to screen all types of cargo, including pallets and containers carried on aircraft, for explosives and other devices.

No plans for additional LOIs beyond the 8 that have already been signed. We have between 27 and 45 additional airports throughout the United States that need modifications so that they can operate more efficiently. Without solutions to their baggage screening problems, as air traffic mounts, these airports may no longer be able to screen 100 percent of all checked baggage.

No clear plans for how emerging technologies, such as Reveal, will be installed at airports to expedite the screening of checked baggage for explosives at those airports that do not require a costly LOI to modify their baggage and conveyor systems.

Only $32 million for non-aviation security activities, such as maritime and land programs. While I recognize that the maritime and land grants programs were moved from TSA into a new one-stop shop, it appears that TSA has requested minimal funding to enhance security in these critical areas. Particularly, I am concerned about the lack of resources allocated for rail security. Given the Madrid bombings and recent actions to limit hazmat cargo shipments in the District of Columbia, I would think TSA would have an increased its budget request for rail security, not decreased it. Congress did not form TSA to exclusively handle aviation security, but rather as an organization to oversee and enhance security for all modes of transportation. Your budget continues to marginalize these other efforts.

I also have reservations about some of the requested bill language TSA has included in the budget. First, TSA is asking Congress to raise the aviation passenger security fees, paid by airline travelers, by roughly $2 billion. While I recognize that when TSA was established, it was to be funded by the users of the system, this has not occurred. In the past, Congress has had to supplement TSA's user fees by roughly $2 billion per year. As we all know, the airlines have come out strongly against this proposed fee increase. It may be very difficult to adopt this proposal.

Second, TSA is again asking Congress to nullify provisions of Vision 100 that require the government to contribute 90 percent of the funds for aviation capital security projects at large and medium airports and 95 percent for small airports. Your 2006 budget asks for a 75 percent federal contribution for security projects. The budget also requests that we waive other provisions of Vision 100 that would set aside a portion of the mandatory security funds for small and medium sized airports. While I recognize that having a lower federal share and waiving funding for some airports will allow you to spread funding among more airports, these provisions are inconsistent with federal law and should be addressed by the appropriate authorizing Committees, not us.

We will discuss these deficiencies, as well as other key issues, during the hearing today.

http://www.house.gov/rogers/March2005/homelandsecurity_tsaassistsecy.html