Pen and Pad Briefing with Under Secretary for Preparedness George Foresman, Assistant Secretary for Grants and Training Tracy Henke, Transportation Security Administration Deputy Administrator Robert Jamison, and Assistant Secretary for Infrastructure Protection Bob Stephan

Release Date: 07/07/06 00:00:00

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
Contact 202-282-8010
Washington, D.C
July 6, 2006

Under Secretary Foresman:  Good afternoon, everybody.  After the 4th of July, you're supposed to be full of energy here.

I'm extremely pleased to be joined this morning by our Assistant Secretary for Grants and Training, Tracy Henke; Robert Jamison, the Deputy Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration; and Bob Stephan, our Assistant Secretary for Infrastructure and Protection, so that we can talk to you a little today about the rollout of seven of our Infrastructure Grant Programs, our Infrastructure Protection Grant Programs that we have just finished a conversation with our state and local partners around the country, and we will be getting these grant packages out to them today.

All of us know that our enemies have pledged both in public and in the intelligence that we continue to monitor to attack America, to kill and injure our citizens, and to take aggressive steps to try to cause negative impacts on our critical infrastructure.  And one of the most fundamental responsibilities of the Department, one of the most serious obligations of the Department, is to make sure that we have a viable process in place to manage risk in America, to manage risk as it relates to people, but also our critical systems and our critical infrastructure systems.

You know, one only has to think back of some of the notable events over the course of the past five years.  Obviously, the September 11th attacks, the blackout in the Northeast, bombings of the Madrid subway system, and almost one year ago to the day, the bombing of the bus and the subway systems in London, to understand the importance that protecting our critical infrastructure, particularly our transportation infrastructure, that not alone, but particularly our transportation infrastructure, the importance of making sure that we have a viable program in place to protect it.

Last week, the Department was pleased to announce the promulgation of the National Infrastructure Protection Plan, which provides the strategic guidelines by which we as a nation, in partnership with our partners in the private sector, as well as at the state and local level, are going to go about a more synchronized or integrated approach to strengthening the resiliency and the protection of America's critical infrastructure.

That National Infrastructure Protection Plan serves as the overarch of the strategic framework, but beyond that, we have to have programs and activities that provide measurable resources to our partners at the state and local level, to our partners in the private sector, and to actually strengthen the security of our critical infrastructure.

Today, we are announcing that important element, the grant program, for the protection of critical infrastructure, the FY '06 Infrastructure Protection Grant Program.  Approximately $400 million in FY '06 grant funds will be made available to further enhance and build a sustainable risk-based effort for protection of critical infrastructure from the risk of terrorism, and especially explosives and non-conventional threats that would cause a major loss of life and a severe disruption of service.

Since the program's inception in 2002, the Infrastructure Protection Grant Program has awarded more than $1.1 billion into the critical infrastructure sectors for a wide range of protective measures.  

The seven programs constituting the major critical infrastructure sectors that will receive grants today we are going to talk about here in just a moment.  But let me very clearly say that we've got three categories of grant programs that we're going to announce today.  

The first category of those grant programs is what we would call targeted programs.  These are programs that are targeted toward specific efforts, primarily at the request and at the direction of the United States Congress.  

The second category are those programs where we have available to us a known amount of funding, and we have identified the eligible recipients to compete for those funds, but it will be a competitive program.  

And then there is a third category, which is a little bit of a hybrid program, which primarily only relates to the transit program, which is a combination of pre-identified targeted funding to particular geographic sectors based on risk, and our understanding of the systems, as well as an element that includes competitive grant programs.

Let me briefly just talk a little about the various programs that we're announcing today.  First, with regard to the program as it relates to the targeted monies, the first of these is the Intercity Rail Program, which is funding that is targeted primarily to Amtrak to improve the security of passenger rail service in this nation.  The second category of that targeted program is to continue the Highway Watch Program, which is administered by the American Trucking Association.

And so those are two very targeted programs based on specific congressional guidance that we will push out the door, in terms of the application process today.

The second category that I want to talk about is the transit program.  We are going to provide more than $136 million that will go to the owners and operators of the nation's critical transit infrastructure, including rail, intracity bus, and ferry systems.  And of that total, roughly $123 million will be allocated to the Tier I urban areas whose systems have been determined to be at most risk based on the factors of total ridership, the ridership density, as well as, in the case of rail systems, those that have underground rail systems.

The one thing that I will offer to you, that when we look particularly at the transit program this year, it represents an intuitive ability for our grant programs to be flexible.  A lot of the approach that we're taking in our Infrastructure Protection Programs, particularly as it relates to transit security, builds on the lessons that we learned not only from Madrid, but from the London bombings last year.  And we understand the unique vulnerabilities and the unique characteristics of incidents that occur below ground, particularly those incidents that occur below ground and adjacent to major waterways.

So as you look at the transit program -- and Robert Jamison will be prepared to talk a little about that, the process that we used in developing this -- we're targeting those things to address such things as improvised explosive devices and the potential for those to cause a mass impact, both in terms of people and infrastructure within those systems.

The programs that are what I would fit into the category of competitive grant programs include the intercity -- or, I'm sorry, the Port Security Program.  More than $168 million will be provided for Port Security Grants to protect the nation's seaports from terrorism -- the nation's 100 most critical seaports, plus an additional seaport that was eligible in 2005, and that we have carried forward this year are eligible to participate in the Port Grant Program.

In addition, we have two of our Buffer Zone Protection Plans.  Buffer Zone Protection Plans are those programs that are designed to work with the owners and operators of critical sites in America, such as chemical facilities and other types of sites to bring them together with their local and their state partners, with DHS, with our operational components, and to make sure that we take a comprehensive look at those facilities, at the security at those facilities, that we identify vulnerabilities, and we implement mitigation measures, ranging from fencing to video surveillance to reduce the risk that those particular sites could be compromised by our enemies who would seek to do us harm.

So we've got two of those programs.  The Buffer Zone Protection Program, approximately $48 million will be awarded to state and local entities to work with the private sector to secure critical infrastructure facilities, such as nuclear power plants, dams, stadiums, arenas and other high-risk areas.  These funds will be used to support, as I had mentioned, both planning and equipment acquisition.

And the second category of the Buffer Zone Protection Plan, $25 million will be provided in a targeted effort to build security enhancements for the chemical, and this will be the Chemical Sector Buffer Zone Protection Program, and to build these enhancements for the chemical sector from acts of terror and other hazards.  Chemical Sector Buffer Zone funding is especially focused on enhancing the protection of facilities which, if attacked, could cause effects like a weapon of mass destruction.  

Many of you all will remember, we've had major events not only in the world, but here in this country, such as Institute, West Virginia, where you have a major release of a high-hazard chemical that can have a dramatic impact on the community and can have a dramatic impact on the surrounding areas.

And then finally, in the fourth of this category of the competitive grant programs is the Intercity Bus Security Grant Program.  Approximately $9.5 million will be provided to eligible owners and operators of fixed route and intercity charter bus service to protect bus systems and the traveling public from acts of terrorism.

The final two categories that I would mention to you, or the final two grant programs that I would mention to you include those that are the targeted activities, as I'd mentioned -- the Highway Watch Program, which is administered by the American Trucking Association, as well as the Intercity Rail Program, which is administered through Amtrak.

Now, as we've looked down through these grant programs, we've taken a number of factors into account as we've developed and designed the program criteria this year.  And let me address one issue just very much up front.  We've had discussions with our state and local partners.  They've asked us on a regular basis when these grants were going to be out the door.  

It has taken us a period of time to get these grants out the door.  But the reason is, we have chosen to ensure that we put a premium on making sure that the grants reflect the lessons from things like London, lessons from what our risk analysis is telling us.  And so we wanted to make sure that these were right, that these were accurate, and that we fully engaged our stakeholder constituencies, particularly our operational components, such as the Transportation Security Administration, in terms of doing our work on our transit grants; the Coast Guard, in terms of the work that we're doing on Port Security Grants.  

So the goal from the get-go has been to make sure that our operational components, working under the leadership of Tracy Henke and her team in our Grants and Training shop are putting together a very comprehensive process, which will measurably reduce the risk to America's critical infrastructure, will interface with the urban area programs, the statewide programs that are already in place that we've talked about so much over the past several weeks and months, and to make sure that we truly are managing America's risk and trying to reduce America's risk by targeting those dollars to those which, based on intelligence and analysis and good quantitative data, we know we need to be targeted the dollars toward so that we can not only reduce risk in a particular system, in a particular area, community, but also for the nation as a whole.

The final point that I want to make with regard to the grant programs this year -- and we provided you a series of charts, and we've got our team here to be able to address your questions -- is this:  These grant programs, this is not an issue about who got what.  This is an issue about where are we targeting the dollars to absolutely do the best that we can do to measurably reduce America's risk from terrorism, and particularly the risk to critical infrastructure.

I have been in the business of state and local government for nearly a quarter of a century, and I understand how grant allocations, how grant awards, how eligible criteria apply.  But I will tell you that we are never going to be able to pursue a 100 percent risk-free America.  And so we are targeting these funds to make sure that we do the maximum that we can do to reduce the risk on a national scale, and on a system and a regional scale.

So, with that, what I'd like to do is be able to take questions from the assembled group.  And I'm going to ask Tracy, Bob Stephan, and Robert Jamison to all come forward and be able to help me with these questions.  So come on up.

Who's first?  Yes, ma'am.

Question:  I'm sure it's in here, but what's the comparable figure to the $399 million for fiscal '05?

Under Secretary Foresman:  For FY '05.

Question: I mean, if the number for this year is --

Ms. Henke:  I was going to say, it's roughly the same.  Some of the programs have a slight increase; for instance, port has more money this year.  But overall, it's roughly the same amount of funding.

Question:  There's no -- we don't have any specific numbers.

Ms. Henke:  I apologize, because I'm -- no, I don't right now.

Under Secretary Foresman:  But Debbie, we'll try to get that for you before we leave, because all the people in the back are quickly typing on their Blackberries.  (Laughter.)

Yes, sir.

Question:  Can you talk about the competitive grants and what the formula would be in terms of -- are rail systems and other buffer zone sites going to be competing with each other for money, and what are going to be the factors?

Under Secretary Foresman:  Well, let me give, first, kind of a broad answer to that, and then I'm going to ask Robert to talk specifically about the rail piece of it.

All of these grant dollars that are going out the door, even those that, as you will see in the grant program, the guidance package that we provided to you, there are some in the transit program that target specific dollars to particular geographical areas.  Ferry systems, for instance, as well.

But those still require the applicants to identify how those dollars are going to be used to measurably reduce their risk in accordance with the plans that they have developed in their particular geographic area, and also in consonance with national guidance.  So the one thing that I want to make clear to everyone is, there is an application process for everyone at hand, but certain portions of the intracity -- the transit programs such as the intracity rail, for instance -- we've targeted certain dollars based on tier levels.  And let me let Robert talk a little about that.

Mr. Jamison:  As George mentioned, the top tier is going to be allocated in regions based on risk, and the second tier will be competitive.  The competition will allow, actually, properties to compete for potentially a larger amount of money than they received last year through allocation.  We'll be weighing the factors based on their ability for the projects to reduce risk, the ability for their overall impact on regional transit security, the completeness of the project, and how cost-effective they are, particularly their ability to leverage other resources in that region to complete projects that mitigate risk.

Question:  I mean, how are you guys going to do the analysis when people submit their grant applications?  Because you came under a lot of fire for the UASI grants.  So are you going to be using a peer review process again, or what's the process by which you make that analysis?  And are you adjusting it based on the whole UASI grants --

Under Secretary Foresman:  Chris, let me address it in two phases, and then I'll ask any one of the three to add some additional clarity to it.

First, there will be a peer review process involved.  In the context of, for instance, the transit and the port programs, when we talk about peer review, we're talking about having operational components inside of DHS, such as TSA, will be actively involved with doing the review of transit applications.  The United States Coast Guard, they will be working as we go through the captains of the ports, frankly, down at the regional level, as well as at the headquarters function, we'll be working through reviewing these applications.  All of this will be coordinated and integrated with our Grants and Training staff.

We would not anticipate, for this round of grant activities, to bring in, if you will, the outside peer review group, the state and local officials, because given the unique nature of what we're doing here with transit systems and what we're doing with port systems, and the way that TSA and the Coast Guard and G&T are involved on the get-go, that won't be necessary.

With regard to the process, have we changed the process, these have been complementary and parallel grant program development activities that have been ongoing for the past nine months.  Clearly, any lessons that we pick up out of any grant program, we apply it elsewhere, but there have been no major changes as a result of the rollout associated with USAI and the state Homeland Security Grant Program.  And Robert, I'm going to ask you to talk a little bit about transit, and ask Bob to talk a little about how the buffer zone review process is going.

Mr. Jamison:  That's exactly right.  From the standpoint of having interagency working groups, from a review standpoint, that process is going to be the same.  We're going to get input from across DHS and the working groups, such as G&T, TSA, Coast Guard where applicable to evaluate those grants.

However, there's also going to be an extensive outreach program so that we work through stakeholder conference calls, outreach sessions, and make sure that they understand the criteria and they work through the guidance process and know exactly how we're going to be evaluating those grants, it can help them through the application process.

Mr. Stephan:  For the buffer zone process, the normal Buffer Zone Protection Plan for this year, this has really been a 12-18 months' evolution.   We called for provided criteria, actually jointly-developed criteria with our state homeland security advisor counterparts across the country, with private leadership through our private sector coordinating councils, and then our sister federal departments and agencies, such as Energy, Defense, Commerce, et cetera, on the specific sectors -- here's the criteria by sector; give us what you believe to meet this criteria in each of these sectors; hence, your version of what the top priority potential target sets might be.

We've run all this through our National Infrastructure Simulation Analysis Center -- the Los Alamos labs up in New Mexico.  And we have cranked out a basically Tier I and Tier II list based upon those assimilated inputs from across our stakeholder communities, and now we have a racked and stacked, by sector, list of prioritized potential target sets that we're going to focus the BZPP money on for this particular year.

Under Secretary Foresman:  And let me ask -- Tracy, why don't you talk a little about the timelines associated with the applicants, and how that is different or not different from last year.

Ms. Henke:  I think it's very important now, as the Under Secretary pointed out, this is later in the year than the applications have come out in the past, but I think it's important to stress that the applicants themselves will have the same amount of time that they've been afforded in the past to apply, which is roughly 30 days.  The applications for the programs will be due August 4th at 11:59 P.M.  They will apply through grants.gov, which is where all our applications are submitted.

And so, once again, they're due August 4th.  We will -- this year, the good thing is, as Mr. Lunner pointed out in the phone call to stakeholders that we had, is that applicants will know the results potentially much earlier than they would have in the past, because these awards will be made by September 30th.  

So, once again, the applications are due August 4th at 11:59 P.M., and the announcements will be made no later than September 30th.

Question:  I was wondering if you can explain the Intercity Passenger Rail Grants getting $7.2 million.  Does that go all to Amtrak, then, or --

Under Secretary Foresman:  Yes, yes, that is a targeted --

Question:  And then, it seems that the funding for the bus programs is much more significant than it has been over the years.  Can you just explain how that breaks down, and is there a greater threat to buses in the United States?  Because members of the Hill and Congress, they're always saying rail security, rail security -- given Madrid and London.

Under Secretary Foresman:  Tracy, go ahead.

Ms. Henke:  One of the things it's important to point out is that you have the Intercity Passenger Rail, and then you also have the Transit Grant Program -- the Transit Grant Program addressing the different rail systems.  So understand that it is, in total, if you look at the transit program, which is approximately $136 million, which addresses the transit systems, the bus systems and the ferry systems, and then you add the Amtrak program on top of that, that's, in essence, the total amount as it relates to transit.  So it's over $140 million if you want to combine the two.

However, through interactions with Congress and congressional direction, the money for Amtrak is approximately the $7 million.  That will go to the Northeast corridor.  It will go toward efforts in Chicago, as well as to their West Coast operations.

Question: Do you know how much of the Transit Security Grant Program goes to rail security, then, specifically?

Ms. Henke:  Yes.  Approximately $100 million -- well, all $136 will go to transit.  Five million of that, though, will be for ferries, the ferry systems.  Approximately $103 goes to Tier I.

Question:  Now, $103 million is for all of the passenger rail.

Ms. Henke:  I apologize --

Question:  -- passenger rail, with the exception of Amtrak, which is $7.2 million --

Question:  $103 million for passenger rail, light rail.

Ms. Henke:  $103 million, yes.  And then the remaining is for bus -- intracity bus.

Question:  Re these funding allocations for mass transit systems such as ferries, are you saying that the operators of these systems have to apply for the money and justify --

Under Secretary Foresman:  That is correct.  And one of the things that we saw last year, even when we pushed the eligibility list out the door, not all the owners and operators of systems, whether they were ferry systems or bus systems or transit systems, chose to apply.  And so these dollars should be recognized as being supplemental to the efforts of state and local government, to the efforts that transit authorities are already putting into safety and security measures.  So it would become a decision on their part as to whether they choose to apply for them.  We're just not simply going to send the dollars in the mail.  

I mean, one of the things that you've heard very clearly from the Congress, and that we continue to be focused on as stewards of the taxpayers' resources is to make sure that these critical homeland security dollars are being used for the intended purposes and are being used as part of an overall national priority and the national focus, because, frankly, if we have everybody out there doing their own thing, then we're never going to reduce the risk to our infrastructure across the country.

Mr. Jamison:  I want to make sure I correct the record from the last question.  It's $103 million on Tier I; $7 million on Tier II for rail transit; and another $7.2 for passenger rail focus on Amtrak.  So it's a $117.2 million total on rail.

Question:  A couple questions.  Now, if I understand it, when the (inaudible) to historic comparisons, will we have some kind of chart that says what the states got, each state got last year versus what they're getting this year?  

Ms. Henke:  We will.

Question:  You will have that?

Ms. Henke:  That information can be provided, yes.

Question:  Will it, you think, this afternoon?

Ms. Henke:  Yes.

Question:  Oh, okay, great.  That would be great.  On the Internet, we can --

Under Secretary Foresman:  We'll get Jarrod to whip it up this afternoon.

Question:  Oh, that would be great.

Ms. Henke:  The information is already -- we'll provide it.

Question:  Whatever comparison you have on it is very, very helpful.

And secondly, I was wondering about the Highway Watch Program, something that a number of us have covered to some degree.  It's just not clear to me exactly how helpful it is.  I mean, the theory sounds great.  I'm wondering what we're getting for our $4 million.

Ms. Henke:  The Highway Watch Program has produced tangible benefits, that we have some very specific examples, for instance, where an individual has -- a truck has gone missing with material that could be considered explosive, and information has gone out, and phone calls, an individual has called into the Highway Watch center saying, I found it, here it is.  And so, once again, something that's very tangible.

On average, in several different months, the Highway Watch Program has over 100 phone calls, and often even more than that, that come into the center.  And once again, it is looking at individuals who can be the eyes and the ears out on the road, out in training facilities, et cetera.

Another perfect example is a training program where individuals went to be trained but they couldn't provide an address, couldn't provide their CDL license.  The individual had gone through training, he called the center.  The center then called the ISAC, and lo and behold, those individuals were potential individuals that were suspect.  And so, the department and the authorities were able to react, specifically because of the Highway Watch Program.

Under Secretary Foresman:  As a practical matter, I mean, the big challenge you run into is, how do you measure progress.  But Tracy pointed to a number of examples.  And it's kind of like with Neighborhood Watch.  There's a tangible benefit to having more people being aware, watching what's going on, being on the lookout for suspicious activity, and having an organized approach by which being able to get information out to those folks who you want to be on the lookout, and Highway Watch provides that.

Question:  I have a question about the pie chart.  First off, why is Jersey City, Newark and New Haven included along with New York City?

Mr. Jamison:  It provides a regional approach.  I mean, all of those transit systems are interconnected, so we're encouraging a regional approach to security.  And we also want to make sure that as we're evaluating all the passenger line region that we're funding, that the systems and the projects (inaudible) most amount of risk.

Ms. Henke:  That's also consistent with last year.

Question:  That's consistent with last year?   Are other programs also -- is that also considered a region for purposes of the Port Security Grant Program, or just for rail?

Mr. Jamison:  It's for rail and for bus -- actually intracity bus.

Ms. Henke:  Yes, this is just for the bus and the rail system.  Port would be separate.  What the region would be for port would be considered -- would be a separate consideration.

Question:  Okay.  And also, again, this is just transit security.  This is a subset of the overall $400 million, correct?

Under Secretary Foresman:  That's correct.  That's correct.

Question:  And that's the chart that you were suggesting you'd be able to get this afternoon?

Under Secretary Foresman:  Well, the chart that they asked for this afternoon was a comparison on the various program areas to previous years, and yes, we will provide it.

Question:  Okay.

Under Secretary Foresman:  Let me go over here and then I'll work back.  Yes, sir.

Question:  Two questions for you.  When Secretary Chertoff was explaining the cuts in the urban area grants at the Brookings Institution, he compared it to an investment.  He said as years go on, you don't continue to invest the same amount; that was his justification.

Here, as I understand it, you're increasing New York City's -- that area's grants by about $10 million over the last year.  So how does that investment model, as he described it with the cuts, compare to this -- you're not cutting, you're boosting.

Under Secretary Foresman:  Well, let me give the first piece of it, and then I'm going to ask Robert to step in here.

If you look at the history of the Urban Area Security Initiative program, in terms of how those dollars are targeted, the type of security measures that those programs are targeted to, we've had very good visibility, we've had very good ideas about where those dollars needed to be targeted.  As we've begun to better understand, at a greater level of detail, the risks and the threats -- the threats, the hazards, and the overall risk to our transit systems, we are going to make adjustments.

And look, the one thing that we offer to folks, is, we are very much in the early stages of what is an evolutionary process in this country, in terms of mitigating risk, whether it's through the Urban Area Security Initiative, or through the Infrastructure Protection Grant Programs, because much of the effort that we're undertaking in America is effort that has begun really in the 2002, 2003 timeframe.

And so we are very much in the early stages of our level of understanding.  One thing that is abundantly clear, we've had the experiences of Madrid, we've had the experiences of London, and we understand probably to a greater degree than we did even a year ago how our enemies would seek to do us harm, and we're factoring that in.  And so what it points to is we've got very nimble grant programs that are able to adapt to changes in risk environment based on what we know.

And let me let Robert talk a little about it, because he spent some time specifically looking at the transit systems.

Mr. Jamison:  Absolutely.  As George talked about, we really focus a lot on high risk and high consequence, and making sure that we mitigate risk through these programs.  So as we looked at the transit rail environment and the transit bus environment, we tried to focus on those high-risk areas.

In the rail sector, we focused a lot on passenger density, which New York City, as you know, is approximately 60 percent of the rail passenger volume in the country.  We also focused a lot on high risk and high consequence.  So the amount of underwater and underground infrastructure played a heavier role, as well as the age of that infrastructure, based off of what we know about the vulnerabilities of the rail systems across the country.

Therefore, New York stacks up very high in that priority list.  From that standpoint, we're focused on mitigating those risks, and the lessons learned from London and Madrid --

Question:  Just so I understand, should we draw from this that you all are assessing that in New York City, that area, the risk to trains, buses, et cetera, in terms of a terrorist attack, is far greater than an attack on the Brooklyn Bridge or other -- the Empire State Building?

Under Secretary Foresman:  No, no.

Question:  Because you cut one area, and you're boosting another here.

Under Secretary Foresman:  If you look at it in the context of the UASI program, New York City, we've always said that New York City has the highest risk in the country from terrorism.  New York City has received the highest amount of the Urban Area Security Initiative funding that has gone for these programs.  And the connection to these is only in the context of the broader tools from a risk analysis standpoint.  And we can go through all of the arguments -- there was less money last year, there was a greater understanding of risk across the entire nation that we had to deal with.  But as we've looked at the transit sector, particularly the rail transit sector, and intracity rail transit sector, we understand the vulnerabilities and the hazards a lot better than we did.  And those will continue to evolve.  And risk changes on a daily basis based on threat information, based on a better understanding of consequences.

Question:  Just a last question.  The decision to boost this money, the final decision to boost this particular grant, transit grant, was that made before or after the announcement of the cuts to the urban area grants?

Under Secretary Foresman:  The analysis that was going in -- as I mentioned earlier, these were parallel processes that were going in -- going on concurrently at the same time.  So the final decisions on the allocations were made after, but they were unconnected to the decisions that were made with regard to UASI.

And let me be very, very, perfectly clear about this:  They were unconnected to the decisions that were made with regard to USAI.

Yes, sir.

Question:  On the chemical sector grants, the buffer zone grants, can you explain why those are a government responsibility and not an industry responsibility?

Mr. Stephan:  Here's the dilemma that we face:  85 percent of the critical infrastructure across America resides in the hands of the private sector, and they have responsibility for the security inside the fenceline, to use the vernacular.

A hundred percent of those facilities exist in some local or state jurisdiction across the country.  So we have a dilemma here, and we've got two sets of actors that are involved, inside the fence and outside the fence, and we have to merge the two.

The chemical piece this year, focusing on a high-risk vector, in terms of potential casualties associated with off-site releases that are very well-documented by the EPA and others, we decided to drill down on this sector to reduce risk -- based on human life consequences with a little bit of economic consequences thrown in there, really working to drive together the planning effort between those with outside-the-fence responsibilities -- our local and state law enforcement and first responders -- and the plants that own this security piece inside the fence.

So it's a way to drive that together and get concrete, tangible results in a sector of particularly high-risk concern.

Question:  You said that the decisions on these grant allocations were unconnected to the decisions made with regard to the UASI grants.  But I just -- there will be a lot of speculation that they were perhaps influenced by the largely negative reaction that you got.  Are you also -- you're implying that it was uninfluenced by that negative reaction.  Was it, in fact, uninfluenced?

Under Secretary Foresman:  It was uninfluenced.  Unequivocally, it was uninfluenced.  And let me be perfectly clear here:  The challenge that we face is to make sure that we have a robust and transparent set of grant programs inside the Department that is free from political influence and addresses what it was designed to address, and that's reducing America's risk from terrorism.  And to reduce America's risk, we have to target dollars into particular geographic areas and particular systems to reduce that level of risk.  And the one thing that I very much want to underscore, as we've gone through the process, it should come as no surprise that the transit system in New York has a higher risk than the other transit systems in the country, because if you do a little extrapolation, as (inaudible) is doing, New York is the highest-risk place.  So people shouldn't read anything into this other than this other than the fact that we're applying risk in a much more integrated fashion, and TSA has been working closely with our partners in G&T to do that.

Yes, sir.

Question:  Just to follow up on a similar idea, in addition to perhaps a negative reaction, there was explicit -- both Pete King, the Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, and Chuck Schumer, the Senator from New York explicitly said that they would urge the Department to make up for New York's loss through other programs.  Was there any effort to make up this -- to do that, to make up the difference?

Under Secretary Foresman:  I don't know how many different ways I can say no, but let me try one additional one.  Chairman King was, I thought, a very articulate advocate for his constituents, as has been Senator Schumer.  They are not alone.  We've heard from any number of officials in Congress across this entire great nation of ours, over the course of the last several months, or the last several weeks, and at the end of the day, we have to do what is right by reducing risk, and what is right by reducing risk is keeping politics out of it.

Spencer.

Question:  Can I ask you to talk a little bit more about this risk assessment and how it's changed?  The overall grant amount, as it's evolved over time, the amounts within each category, do they accurately reflect the Department's assessment of the changing risks posed to various targets over the last couple of years?  A follow-up.  You mentioned improvised explosive devices; Bob, you mentioned the NISAC analysis.  Can you elaborate on any specifics in the last one, two or three years?  What's changed in terms of the assessment of risk to these targets?  And the third part would be, the National Infrastructure Protection plan just came out.  How, if at all, do you expect next year that product and sector plan to affect how you award grants?

Under Secretary Foresman:  Let me see if I can address it at a little higher level, Spencer, then I'm going to ask Robert and Bob, my two Roberts up here, to chime in on their respective areas.

As we've looked at the grant programs, the challenge that we run into is, as we do the budgeting process in the federal government, we develop our federal budget 18 months ahead of when it becomes the federal budget.  And a lot of things change in that time.  But Congress has been good about providing flexibility in the context of these grant programs so that we can adjust to it.  Think about where the budget cycle was last year when the London bombings occurred, versus where we are today.

So I would say that you are seeing a much better reflection of lessons learned, you are seeing a much better reflection, a better understanding of the threats that we face and the risk, the overall risk that we face, including consequences and vulnerability and threats.

So yes, we do understand that better, and that's how we target our dollars.

Question:  Can you be specific at all about how that understanding has changed any particular program or grant?

Under Secretary Foresman:  Yes, and let me ask Robert to talk specifically on transit for a minute, because I think it's an interesting study, because if you think about how we applied our transit dollars in previous years, as he mentioned, it was predominantly based on ridership and ridership density.  But we've taken some new factors in, and I'll let him talk a little about what we learned out of London --

Mr. Jamison:  Yes, from a lessons learned perspective, you'll see this year the allocations more accurately reflect the systems that have underwater and underground infrastructure, and there's been more emphasis placed on that.  Lessons learned from London were applied.  We know that underground infrastructure adds greatly to the possible impacts of an event, and particularly to the response and recovery to an event underground.  So we're going to put more emphasis on the ability to protect and mitigate those consequences from an underground attack.

So you'll see that directly reflected in the allocations that came across.  You'll also see more emphasis probably on age of infrastructure and the possible mitigation measures as we go through and look at not only threat, but also the ability to mitigate that risk based on the infrastructure that they have to protect.      

Under Secretary Foresman:  Bob, why don't you talk briefly about BZPP and the facilities?

Mr. Stephan:  In overall terms, what you see is an increased sophistication between 2003 and 2006.  We now have better data, we have better quantifiable data, especially in terms of consequences, especially in terms of threat, and increasingly in terms of vulnerability.  But we're not quite there yet on the vulnerability piece but getting better.

We now have, through the brains of the national labs, the mathematical formulas that allow us to merge these three variables that constitute the risk calculus together -- consequences, vulnerabilities and threat data.  In the Buffer Zone Protection Plan, for example, you're seeing us apply the data through the calculus into specific risk by site, in terms of the calculation.  

If you take a look and do an analysis of the '04, '05 buffer zone plan, you'll see a fairly equal distribution of funds to support state and local efforts, cooperating with the private sector, across all 17 sectors, with a pretty big spike in the commercial facilities sector.  If you do an analysis of the '06 money, you're going to see a very different calculus this time, based upon this better data and the engineering process that we have at this point in time.  You're going to see a focus on energy production sites, chemical plants, high-consequence dams, things where lots of human lives are at risk on a day-to-day basis, given toxic chemicals that could be produced in an off-site release over a surrounding community, outside a chemical or a nuclear power plant, for example, or the incredible power of Mother Nature through water, if we have a security breach of dam structures that are consequential across the United States.  You're seeing us driving more and more and more in a sophisticated manner to the target sets that make the most difference and get us the most bang for the buck at the same time.

Under Secretary Foresman:  Spencer, let me give you a practical example.  I come from state and local government.  I spent my quarter century in state and local government in Virginia.  The first year of the infrastructure programs, it was basically, okay, state and local officials, here are the dollars, protect the critical infrastructure.  What does that mean?  Maybe that's a little bit of an oversimplification, but that's about where we were.  Over the course of the last three years, working closely with our state and local partners, we realize we can't make the decisions in Washington about what specific site needs to be protected or what specific step needs to be taken in New York or Los Angeles or anywhere else.

And so we've designed the programs to provide the broad national guidance based on the strategic threat analysis that we continue to do, based on our strategic understanding of the risk, if you will -- whether it's chemical facilities, or nuclear facilities, whether it's transit, ports, whatever it might be.  We've adjusted those programs to get it down to the local level and to the state level.  We'll let them be the ones to say, okay, we understand where the national priorities are.  Those priorities are informed by the intelligence community, they're informed by analytical work that's been done, and here's how we're going to tackle those national priorities.

But we're also telling them they have to tackle their local priorities, too, because they have already pre-identified what they need to do.  Up in New York-New Jersey, they've got a strategy on what they need to do strengthen the security of the port up there, to strengthen the security of their transit system.  And the federal dollar is just part of it.  And there are millions of dollars.

Question:  Do you expect them to change next year with the NIPP?  Or will that have any impact?

Under Secretary Foresman:  Here's where -- and this is the interesting part, and it goes back to a question that was asked earlier.  I think there are two very valuable things that will come out of this year's process beyond just the provision of grant dollars.  One, we will gain yet another level of data, of understanding of risks in particular ports, particular transit systems so that as we sit down to design the '07 programs, we'll have a better understanding of where the risks are, where we need to target dollars, how we need to target the programs.  That's going to be one thing.

So whether or not a jurisdiction ends up with a dollar or $10,000 or $10 million, there is a value added to that because it informs the process.

The second piece of it is it also will provide for the local jurisdictions in future years.  It provides us -- right now we've had to develop budgets over the course of this nation's efforts in homeland security that were based on solid, analytical review.  But that analytical review is going to be even more solid in future years.  We're going to know better where to target the dollars based on what the state and local governments have said to us.

Yes, sir.

Question:  Following up on that, you're saying that you're more sophisticated now than you were several years ago, but what's the next step?  What are you not doing in terms of giving these funds where they need to go?  And are you comfortable with sort of a year-long process where we see a bombing in Madrid or a bombing in London, and it takes a full year for similar sites in the United States to be given funds to harden themselves?

Under Secretary Foresman:  Let me address that two ways.  One, from a timeframe perspective, when you look at the dollars that are available -- and we've got roughly $18 billion that are down at the state and local level; state and local levels have drawn down about half of that.  It doesn't mean that they've fully spent half of them, it means they've only drawn down about half of it out of the federal Treasury.  We know that a lot of states and communities are spending dollars every day towards homeland security efforts, but they've not yet actually drawn down their federal dollars to reimburse their expenditures.  

But having said that, the availability of funds both through this grant cycle -- we'll have the '07 grant cycle coming down through here -- always gives us the ability to adjust these programs on an as-needed basis.  If we were to have a major event tomorrow, which necessitated in the wise counsel of our Grants and Training, our TSA, our Coast Guard folks, a change in program focus, something that our state and local partners wanted to do, we would certainly entertain that, as long as it it's within the broader congressional authorization that they've provided to us with the funds.  

And so I think we've got the flexibility we need to have, and when we talk about the allocation process, there have been improvements in the information, but not dramatic changes in the information.

Yes, ma'am.

Question:  Question about port security.  There are no guarantees, for example, that Long Beach will have X amount, or that New York-New Jersey will have X amount for their port security, is that right?

Under Secretary Foresman:  That's correct.

Question:  I guess I'm a little surprised.  What's the thinking there?  Because, as we know, these containers are running our economy.

Under Secretary Foresman:  Absolutely, great question.  And part of the challenge, as we developed the grant programs, is, remember, we have to develop grant programs that can be administered at the state and local level, too.  And Tracy and her team, I think, have done a fabulous job in trying to get that level of consistency to the men and women who actually have to manage the dollars and manage the program compliance piece of it.

If you think about the number of ports that we have in this country, we have several hundred ports.  We've chosen the top 101 ports that account for roughly 95 percent of the foreign water-borne commerce coming into this country.  If you think about transit systems, that is a much smaller number, when you talk about the large complex transit systems, whether you're talking about intracity bus, intracity rail, and those types of things.  

So, frankly, in the context of the ports, you need to see what the amalgamation is out there, because we don't necessarily have the level of understanding today on the ports that we do, for instance, on the transit systems, just because of the sheer number of ports that we're talking about in relation to transit.

So the decision point that has to be made by local officials, again, to remind everybody for the fifth time today, state and local officials, you have got to make that value-added decision.  Is it important enough to do?  Is it critical enough to do, irrespective of the availability of federal dollars?  And secondly, you know the answer is going to be, no, you're not going to get money if you don't apply for it.  So the goal here is to make sure that folks put the time and the effort into the application and the investment justifications, and that helps everybody involved.

And frankly, the big thing to understand is, on the Port Security Programs, the captains of the ports, the Coast Guard sent the message down to the captains of the ports yesterday, gave them the warning order, grants are coming out.  You've got to partner up very closely with your port folks, with your owner-operators down there.  We need to put a premium.  These are no surprises.  Folks knew these were coming.  So this is essentially taking the program guidance and applying what most folks knew what they needed to do and putting it into the application process.

Question:  So you're saying that basically, federal government just doesn't have as much understanding of the handful of really critical ports --

Under Secretary Foresman:  No, I think we do have an understanding, but when we look at addressing the nation's security, it is a much more complex mosaic, if you will, and we need to make sure that we have a greater level of detail, a greater level of information that is only going to come from going through that application process with the captain of the port working with the local port authority.  

Ms. Henke:  And actually, if I may go back to one of the very first questions about the dollar amount -- also so the staff quit scrambling and trying to get it on email -- just so you know, as I said, it was fairly consistent, and the numbers are -- I have the exact numbers in front of me.  For Intercity Bus, IBSGP, fiscal year '05 was $9.6 million; fiscal year '06 is $9.5 million.  For trucking, fiscal year '05 was $4.8 million; fiscal year '06 is $4.8 million.  For your port security, fiscal year '05 was approximately $142 million; fiscal year '06 is approximately $168 million.  Passenger rail, fiscal year '05, $6.3 million; fiscal year '06, $7.3 million.  Transit, fiscal year '05, $135 million; fiscal year '06, $136 million.  For Buffer Zone, understand that fiscal year '05 was a combination of fiscal year '04 and '05 dollars, so it was a combined '04 and '05 that went out in '05, and that total $91 million.  For fiscal year '06, it's approximately $48 million.  But once again, understand that last year was two years combined.  Okay?

Question:  On the port program, historically there's been a real balance between some of the grants going to big ports -- the port of Houston, for example -- sometimes it goes to Mobil Oil, which has a facility.  Is there a desire to either pare back the private awards, or make any sort of structural changes?

Under Secretary Foresman:  Well, there are really three primary goals with the Port Security Program.  One is to make sure that we're taking more steps that will reduce our overall national level of risk, based on the amount of particularly foreign-borne traffic in and out of these ports.

The second piece -- and we're targeting the dollars to those port operations that will have the greatest impact.  And I don't know that we've made a strategic decision.  We're looking to do something that would benefit more to the public sector versus the private sector.  We're looking to reduce the risk in the port as a whole.  So we've made no real change there.

The third point I want to make -- and you all will see this in the program guidance -- is when we go through the review process, we will actually end up tiering the ports, because there are some ports that, by the function of their tonnage and their economic impact, the potential consequences based on their location -- you mentioned Houston being one, Long Beach is a big port, New York is a big port, places like that -- they will probably -- they will continue to have a higher level of risk associated with them.  

So there will be a level of paring associated with the ports.  For instance, one tier may be the highest-risk ports, and then there will be a mid-level tier and a lower-level tier, much in the same way that we've addressed the transit security program, because we're just simply not saying, okay, we're going to take tonnage, or we're going to take port trips in and out, or we're going to take, in the case of transit, ridership or ridership density and make the decisions.  And so we've got to put an additional level of scrutiny.  And that's where the Coast Guard, working with folks like the American Port Association and others will help inform that risk-tiering process.

Great, everybody, see you all.

###

This page was last modified on 07/07/06 00:00:00