| Home | Information Sharing & Analysis | Prevention & Protection | Preparedness & Response | Research | Commerce & Trade | Travel Security | Immigration |
The threat level in the airline sector is High or Orange. Read more.
This information is not current, is not being updated, and may contain broken links.
Release Date: May 16, 2008
Washington, D.C.
Union Station
Secretary Chertoff: Well, I'm delighted to be here at Union Station. I am joined by the CEO of Amtrak and also Ross Ashley from FEMA, who is the Assistant Administrator in charge of our Grant Program, Paul Lennon from TSA, our General Manager for Mass Transit, and Captains Don Grant and John Marks from the United States Coast Guard, also an array of well armed law enforcement folks behind us, and of course the K-9s.
I think this is an appropriate place here at Union Station to announce our Fiscal Year 2008 Infrastructure Protection Grants. Union Station is a terrific location because it highlights that the essence of what we do with respect to our grants is to operate in a regional and a cooperative framework with our partners both at Amtrak and other transportation agencies and with state and local government.
And here in the national capital region and also up in New York, we've got transit security working groups that are a great example of the kind of partnership that brings all the best minds to the table on requirements and what needs to be filled in terms of capabilities.
[K-9 Barked]
And there we have agreement from one of the beneficiaries of this program.
I'd specifically like to thank Earl Lewis of the Maryland Transit Administration and Matt Greenwald of the Washington Metro Area Transit Authority for their service chairing the National Capital Region Working Group. And I want to note in particular their participation in a regional exercise and training effort, which is one of our top priorities this year.
So now let's come to the money. This year our infrastructure protection awards total $844 million, an increase of nearly $189 million over last year's amount. This brings the total funding for infrastructure protection to more than $3 billion since 2002.
This year's allocations are divided among a number of grant programs; a transit security grant program, freight rail security grant program; inner city passenger rail; port security; inner city bus; trucking security; and buffer zone. And let me give you an example of what we have seen in terms of an increase in funding in some of these major programs from this year as compared to last year.
In 2007, our transit security grant program awarded $257 million in grant. This year we're awarding $350 million in grants. That's an increase of $92.4 million.
Last year we didn't have a freight rail security grant program. This year we're going to be awarding almost $5 million for freight rail security.
Last year we had $312 million in port security grants. This year it's up to $388 million, an increase of over $75 million.
And finally, our inner city passenger rail Amtrak grant program has nearly doubled this year as compared to last year from $13.5 million to about $25 million.
Now if you look back over the last several years and you consider what we've spent $3 billion on, you're going to see a little bit of a change over time. Initially, of course, most of our grants were used to fund response and recovery capabilities, capital, equipment and assets. In other words, the physical tools that have to be used to secure our infrastructure.
But as we've matured, as we've begun to build those capabilities, as we've bought the equipment, as we've bought the tools, a lot of our focus is now shifting in the direction of prevention and preparedness, and in particular, planning, exercising and training, which are the key to success in the area of prevention and preparedness. Specifically, our top priorities this year for grants include prevention of improvised explosive devices; communication enhancements, like 24/7 call centers; better information sharing and analysis; and more regionally based security cooperation and exercising.
Now that means we fund a broad range of activities, but I will tell you there are some things we do not fund, and one of these you'll see is that we did turn down some applications this year because although it's important to get the money out, it's equally important to make sure the money gets out only for a useful purpose. So here are a couple of things that we didn't fund.
We got some applications for money for video surveillance equipment. But if we didn't have a plan or we didn't get a plan for where the cameras would be placed or how they'd be monitored, we didn't pay for it.
We got funds to secure rail cars -- or, sorry, a request for funding to secure rail cars. The problem is, the rail cars haven't been purchased yet. So we're not going to pay money to secure things that haven't been actually acquired. And finally, we rejected applications for money to pay for refreshments and meals for security training and travel expenses for training that's available for free online. So we are trying to balance the desire to build capabilities with our obligation to be responsible stewards of the public's money.
Let me talk in particular about a couple of specific programs which I think will be of interest. First is our transit security program. That is what protects our intracity rail, our subways, our Metro, our underground, to make sure that the millions of people who travel each day can travel with security and with safety. The focus has been on protecting rail systems, bus systems and ferry systems in high-threat urban areas.
And that's why even though we've had an increase of $92 million this year as compared to last year, we're still being disciplined about the way we award the money. Specifically, we're awarding $350 million for intracity rail and bus and $25 million for Amtrak. Among the particular types of capabilities that we are focusing on with this year's grant awards are K-9 teams in Atlanta and New York City, mobile screening teams in the national capital region, and our surge capabilities in Chicago, the national capital region, New York City and Philadelphia.
Let me review briefly the funding plan with respect to the eight highest risk tier 1 urban areas that have received this transit security grant money.
Los Angeles. In Fiscal Year 2007, we awarded $11.4 million to Los Angeles. This year we're awarding $13.5 million in transit grant programs. That's an increase of almost 20 percent, $2.1 million.
San Francisco has gone up from $22.2 million to $25.4 million, an increase of $3.5 million. Here in the national capital region, we've jumped almost a third, from $29.4 million in money in 2007 to $38.4 million this year, an increase of $9 million.
Philadelphia, we've increased the amount from $15.6 million to $18.8 million. In Atlanta we've increased from $5.5 million to $6.4 million. Chicago has gone up almost $6 million from $20.6 million to $26 million. Boston has increased $24.7 million to $29.3 million.
And finally, New York has seen a very substantial jump. The New York City regional area has seen an increase from $98.2 million last year to $175.4 million this year. That's an increase of over $77 million, an almost 80 percent difference.
In addition, 23 lesser-risk tier 2 urban areas are going to split up $16.8 million among them. And we've also got about $8.5 million that remains that we will continue to be awarding with respect to certain follow-on applications.
Finally, as I indicated earlier, Amtrak will be getting $25 million this year. This is designed to focus on what we need to do to protect intercity rail travel. And some of the steps taken by Amtrak like the K-9 deployment teams, behavioral assessment teams, mobile screening efforts, deployed here in Union Station as well as elsewhere, are exactly the kind of capabilities we should be bringing into play in order to continue to increase the level of protection for our rail passengers.
The other big program with infrastructure protection is port security. At $388.6 million this year, which is an increase of over $75 million from last year, this is the largest of our single infrastructure protection activities. And here again we're paying particular emphasis on regional risk-based planning and local collaboration. We're looking at threats that come from the water as well from the land, and we're focused on communications and information sharing.
This year we funded all the requested projects that were validated through local and national review panels. And 22 additional ports received allocations to draft portwide risk management plans which allow local area maritime security committees to determine their regional needs for the next five years.
What are our major focuses with this year's money and this year's grants? Well, maritime domain awareness, enhancing port authorities' ability to monitor what's going on in their maritime domain, to control access to standardized credentialing, and to share and analyze intelligence.
IED protection response and recovery. This is particularly focused on preventing IEDs from being delivered through underwater swimmers, small vessels like we saw with the USS Cole or on ferries. This complements our recently announced small vessel security strategy, which involves the Coast Guard working with our ports to protect against both water side and land side threats.
Training and exercises again continues to be an important element of what we are funding.
And finally, we want to complete the implementation of our transit worker credential program or TWC program, because we recognize how important it is to be able to validate who is coming into our ports, and we want to get that done this year.
Again to review the numbers. This year, San Francisco and the Bay Area received $26.7 million, an increase of $6.5 million over last year, which is a 32 percent increase.
L.A.-Long Beach has gone up from $23.4 million in '07 to $38 million in '08, an increase of $14.7 million or almost two-thirds.
Delaware Bay went up slightly from $19.5 million to $20 million. New Orleans went up from $22 million to $30 million. New York-New Jersey port went up from $42 million to $45 million. Houston-Galveston went from $23 million to $32 million, and Puget Sound from $24 million to $27 million.
Some of the specific types of things we've funded. L.A.-Long Beach have gotten money to continue to build on their shared intelligence, their fusion center and to develop cooperative agreements to ensure the flow of commerce if in fact some part of the port were shut down.
New York and New Jersey have used the funding they've received up to now to enhance security on a portwide scale rather than simply doing it individual facility by facility.
New Orleans has implemented a floating command center and a five-port consortium to integrate all of their planning and operations among all of the ports in the area.
The bottom line here is we're continuing to be focused on a risk-managed approach to giving this money out. Most of the money is going to the high-risk areas, both with respect to rail transit and with respect to port security. Our process continues to become more consistent, continues to become more timely, and continues to be better integrated with the requirements and the requests of our local and state partners.
The key here is regional cooperation. The ports often span a lot of jurisdictions, and our response and our preparedness has to equally span a lot of jurisdictions.
So with that, I'll be happy to take some questions. Yes?
Question: Mentioned surveillance programs to protect -- here in Washington, is there going to be a new authority that grants -- that supports the surveillance program? There's a lot of people against them, and what do say to people who are trying not to --
Secretary Chertoff: Right. I think you're talking about a city program to integrate all of its video cameras. I can tell you that I've -- you know, Chicago is the pioneer in this. But if you look at not only Chicago, you look at London, you look all around the world, video cameras have turned out to be a very, very powerful tool not only in combating crime, but in combating terrorism.
You saw it in the response to the London bombing of a couple of years ago where video cameras allowed them to identify the perpetrators and to act quickly to prevent them from carrying out further attacks.
Time and again, the value of these video cameras in open spaces has been validated. So, obviously, you know, the city is going to have to manage dealing with the city council, and they're going to have to develop the specific implementation plan. And we want to make sure that whatever is acquired on video is properly safeguarded and people's privacy is protected.
But, you know, I was talking to the mayor of Chicago recently, and I said how did you find it when you started to roll this program out? And he said, you know, we went to the various neighborhoods and we said if you don't want to have cameras, you don't have to have them. And every neighborhood said, no, no, no, we want the cameras. We want to be protected. We want to be safer when we walk on the street. We want to know that there's a better capability to respond.
So I think, you know, this is one of those areas where the people have spoken. And when you give them a choice, I think cameras that can protect them from crime and protect them from terrorism is something that the public wants.
Question: Mr. Secretary, New York City got a huge increase in value. What specifically is New York going to do with that money and --
Secretary Chertoff: Well, it's both. It's based principally on the fact that there are some unique vulnerabilities in New York having to do with the volume of traffic, the extensiveness of the system, the particular architecture of the system, and they're going to be able to use this money to close some remaining vulnerabilities. The money they have gotten son far has gone a long way to doing the job. They provided us with a very disciplined plan about some additional steps they need to take which will close the remaining gaps.
And I think with the money we're giving them this year, if they don't get them all closed, they'll be virtually all closed, and we'll be able to I think, you know, quite happily say that the risks that were identified have been addressed, and they have taken the steps necessary to close them. I think that's a big cause for New York to be proud and for New Yorkers to feel more safe and secure.
Question: -- coalition to stop lawsuits, you are trampling on property owners' rights to create a border fence and simply want a border fence as a political sop to Middle America. How would you respond?
Secretary Chertoff: Did they say that it was a political sop to Middle America? Well, here's -- let me begin by saying this. First of all, Congress overwhelmingly mandated that we build the fence. And I think it was maybe not quite unanimous but pretty much overwhelming.
Number two, having worked very closely with the Border Patrol, I can tell you that they are convinced that where they are building fencing it will be a very significant tool allowing them to get control of the border and allowing them to protect their own Border Patrol agents against violence.
You know, I had the privilege, the sad privilege today of meeting with family members of Border Patrol agents who lost their lives in the line of duty. And I can tell you that at the very top of my list of priorities is making sure that we safeguard them and we safeguard the public against smuggling, which is a very serious threat not only to the integrity of our borders but really to the safety of our citizens.
As far as the specifics go, you know, we've had a whole number of lawsuits filed up to now with people claiming there hasn't been adequate consultation, and the courts have rejected those, because we have had dozens of town hall meetings. We've had constant and consistent efforts at engaging with the public.
Now what we haven't done is we haven't given everybody a veto. If somebody says that they don't -- you know, they prefer to have an open border, we don't necessarily give them the right to make that judgment. Because the consequences of an open border are smuggling of drugs and human beings into this country, and those consequences are visited all over the country.
When someone brings methamphetamine into the United States through the Southwest border, that methamphetamine may not be sold in the Texas border. Maybe it will be sold in Chicago. Maybe it will be sold in Washington. My job is to stop that methamphetamine from getting in here in the first place.
Just the other day ICE raided a drop house -- I think it was in Arizona -- and liberated literally dozens of people who were kept in squalor by smugglers who, having brought them across the border, essentially were holding them for ransom. And as we build this fence, as we build the technology, as we build the roads, as we build the radar, as we build the cameras, we are giving our Border Patrol the tools to prevent that kind of smuggling from taking place.
So, you know, we -- look. As we did in Hidalgo County, if we can find a way to make this work so that the community gets a benefit and is happy, I'm more than happy to do it. But at the end of the day, the responsibility to protect the country against the smuggling of drugs, human beings and everything else is the number one priority.
Congress has made it clear they want this done, and I take them at their word. I assume when they pass a law they mean it to be enforced. The Border Patrol has repeatedly demonstrated and proven to me that this is important to them, both to secure the border and to protect Border Patrol agents.
And, therefore, I am determined -- this may startle people, because we haven't done it maybe as well as we should over the last 30 years -- I am determined to enforce the law and to carry out the law, and to protect this country against this kind of smuggling.
Question: Mr. Secretary?
Secretary Chertoff: Yes?
Question: Back on the grants. Were these grant programs -- in the past we've seen problems with the money trickling down, getting to where it's supposed to go, to states and local governments. Do you see that problem smoothing out over the years as they grow --
Secretary Chertoff: I am. I understand there's always an issue about, you know, we tend to deliver our money to the states. And some of the local jurisdictions complain sometimes that the state does take a little bit of it and keep a little bit, and they'd like to get the money directly.
Obviously, first and foremost, we administer the programs according to the way Congress directs. Second, the states do have the ability to kind of take an overarching view, but as we've gotten more specific about the kinds of projects, I think we've been able to be more disciplined in what we support.
We've been able to assure ourselves the money is actually producing the result, so it's not just about putting money into something. It's about actually producing the result. And I think our whole program from the very beginning process of award through the process of making sure it gets executed is much better than it was several years ago.
Moderator: Any final questions?
Secretary Chertoff: All right. Have a good weekend.
###
This page was last reviewed/modified on May 16, 2008.
