and what is their mandate? what are they -- >> with regards to freight rail security, there is one tsa regulation, the one that deals with the secure and positive handoff of toxic inhalation hazards, their focus has been to go out to our rail facilities and basically focus on how well that regulation is being adhered to. really as i had mentioned before in my testimony, we value a lot of the good positive relationship with tsa, but what we're seeing now, we have concerns about the level of knowledge and training that the transportation inspectors are getting especially since their growth was so fast, but we're basically seeing multiple inspectors coming out to basically observe the same function in a number of limited locations, so again, we recognize that tsa brings some great value in the partnerships that we have with them, but i'm

not sure we're seeing the total value of this program. >> isn't there already a profound for example for safe handling of coupling and uncoupling of cars and toxic materials and in other agencies, transportation? this is, these are homeland security inspectors. >> predominantly, freight, rail, safety and security regulations come under the auspices of the federal administration. we see a number of fra inspectors who are out in the rail property looking at compliance with the regulations they oversee, but the one currently that tsa has jurisdiction over is the toxic inhalation hazard, which requires there is a physical

hand off, to make sure that physical hand off. we recognize that there's a significant difference in the security threat to freight transportation versus the security that needs to be focused on and the traveling public. again, we focus quite significantly on a number of security issues. just not sure of the focus that tsa has put on this one -- >> do you see this as a redundancy? >> there are two things. one, i do see as a redundancy with what the railway mrks focuses on and i think we work hard to ensure full compliance with regulation. again, in my testimony, we get lotted on one hand by an inspector who watches this physical handoffened indicates we're doing it perfectly than to take exception to the fact that we may have a misspelled name.

the indication that has to be is that we're meeting the intention of the regulation, but the inspectors may have to find something and turn to some issues instead. >> thank you. for all the railroad stations, et cetera, only effective -- the noses of canines, correct? do you have enough of them? >> i don't think there would be a chief in the country that tells you he has enough resources, but certainly in terms of canines, we need to expand that. they are one of the most versatile and skilled tools out there and i think they should be expanded. not only in surface transportation. >> they work cheap, too.

>> well, they're very appreciative of their handlers and a good program creates a good team, but i think they should be widely used throughout the whole transportation industry. >> thank you. i yield back. >> now you know why i like chief o connor. recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. represents a district which has just about everybody at that table with a large footprint in it in new orleans, louisiana. you can take amtrak and greyhound, which the hub is right next to the superdome. csx and all of our major rail lines that come into the port of new orleans and some of our chemical plant, not to mention the truckers. i guess the disturbing part, it

appears as though you take your jobs very, very seriously and you have recommendations from the boots on the ground so to speak, or the front line of defense and it appears as though the working relationship with tsa in terms of how to make things safer, is that there's some gap or some sense that they don't respond or take your suggestion seriously. so i guess my first question would be a very general question and you can submit further answers in writing, but i would be curious to know when you all make recommendations such as less focus on operational and not get stuck on regular laces that have no direction

connection to safety. what kind of feedback do you get and do you have any suggestions for us? those regulations that are redundant and misguided in terms of not a very direct connection in safety, i'd like to know about those because at the end of the day, i think that new orleans is a very sensitive or delicate city when it comes to transportation security. so we want to make sure we get it right. if we could start with you and go down the line, that would be very beneficial. >> let me start by saying in other areas working with the tsa, our partnership has been very good. when we first started out with vipers, we had a lot of problems. but we reached agreement to work on operational plans together and when we both signed off on the purpose of vipers and how

they would be deployed, but for some reason, that hasn't happened in the inspector program. in the canine program, we work hand in glove with them and in fact, they come to us to learn about the canine program and have made efforts to expand it based upon our experience. we've raised these issues with the administrative pistol. he is aware of them. he has promised to look into some of these issues, but we're still waiting for the results of those meetings. >> just to be clear, for r you, it's really a problem with the inspector program. >> that's correct. >> congressman, i would underscore what chief o con ner says and rate our relationship with the freight rail branch, the group that focuses on policy is very good. we've had good interaction with that group and traditionally, they will listen to our concerns. most of the focuses within that

group come from rail backgrounds, which we find very helpful. we don't always agree with some of the regulations coming forward, but we understand they have a task and we can appreciate that tasing. we have what we think is a very good relationship with our safety coordinator, whose job is to understand the concerns and issues that we have, but finally, i think our relationship with the surface transportation inspector is given that they report up through a director who focuses more on aviation security. we find that is low es of the three groups we deal with regularly at tsa. >> i may have missed it, but any suggestion on who should be at the top of the command chain? >> i think that perhaps in my point of view, it's not who should be at the top, but they should all be together. >> with the focus on aviation,

at least for this group. >> correct. i would tell you that a rail yard in a freight train is entirely different and air passenger security. >> mr. byrd. >> thank you, congressman. i would agree with my colleagues to the right that the relationship between the trucking industry and tsa is good on one hand and on the other, can be improved. and i think that is in basic terms as a partnership and a trusted partnership and one that needs to be expanded on. when we, the trucking industry has been dealing with what is the trucking card for approximately five years and that program has an -- results in terms of antiterrorism or securing our sea ports and other venu venues. it's purpose was to be a single

buy mettic prudential thatcould areas and has yet to fulfill that requirement. we still don't have readers in the field and yet, we are looking upon a situation where these cards that were first issued are going to expire shortly. and we're going to have to go through that economic burden again and still don't have readers. so, that's the problem for us. in terms of the micro situation i made comment to in the testimony in georgia and tennessee, you know, as a taxpay taxpayer, is it a good investment to have a second level of inspectors to go out just to hand out material to commercial drivers about how they can communicate when they have effective programs both in our private businesses and in an industry at large? so, i think that the key from

the trucking industry would be to expand on the trusted part of the program. work together, communicate together and develop that. >> gentlemen's time's expired. now go to the gentleman from minnesota. another round of questions if you want to pick up mr. richmond at that time. >> that's fine. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chair. thank you, all, for coming here today. appreciate it. if i could please, mr. elliot, just a couple of questions for you. in your experience does the tsa inspectors you've dealt with, are they more focused on securing the environment or technical compliance? >> technical compliance. >> dotting the is, crossing the ts. not looking at the security over environmental security then. >> well -- >> when i say environmental, i mean conditions. >> correct.

>> yeah, okay. do you think the current structure with tsa inspectors are reporting to federal security directors and the field is working well? >> i believe there's probably too much inconsistency with the current tsa organizational structure that has a group of individuals responsible for coming out and providing inspection of the freight rail yard not connected with the headquarters organization that really is responsible for formlating policy and regulations and i think what happens is that then we see this tremendous inconsistency with the application of the regulations and interpretations. we spend an inordinate amount of time, resources dealing with minor trivial issues. fact in point, approximately two weeks ago, we received notification from our liaison about what they considered to be a serious security breach in our

rail yard in jacksonville and asked for a meeting. so brought my security team in. myself, the representatives from the tsa surface inspection site came in. they laid out the issue as they saw it only to find out it was a misinterpretation of their own regulation and that the regional security liaison then had to call back after he called the headquarters group, the freight rail group in washington, to get the interpretation to find out that this, what to them, was a significant violation of the regulation wasn't a violation at all. we spent a lot of time and effort preparing for that meeting trying to understand what we may have done wrong only to find out it was an inaccurate application of the regulations by the inspectors who were supposed to know those things. >> you touched on a point i want to try to hammer home. when railroads speak of a regional security inspectors, the rsis with concerns about security transportation security inspectors, what actions are rsis able to take?

>> probably very little, but i do give our regional security inspector good marks for his communications with us and trying to act as an intermediary to solve our concerns. but you're rilgt. he has little capability to solve any problems independent. >> that's pretty much because of the chain of command, as i understand it. ss, stsi's do not report to the tsa freight rail branch, do they? >> no. >> or to the tsa headquarters. >> that's correct. >> okay, and rather the s -- stsi's report, the federal security director. is that correct? >> yes. >> and the field where primary focus. isn't there primary focus on aviation? >> it is. >> okay, that's what i thought. so now, although the tsa

appointed the regional security inspectors to be liaisons to the railroad on surface transportation issues, the rsis are not in the chain of command of the stsis, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> or the tsa freight rail branch. >> yes. >> so therefore, they like really any authority to resolve any issues or the ability to provide meaningful suggests, is that correct? >> yes. >> so, it's a pretty messed up system. >> it could be better. >> you should run for politics. okay. i just want to show the inadequacy of the system. your example was right on on just how just how ineffective

the system is when there is an issue and you have to go to great lengths to explain yourself. so thank you very much, sir. i will yield back mr. chair. >> now recognize my friend and colleague, mr. davis, for any questions he may have. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman and let me thank the witnesses. the department has been championed its see something say something campaign for the last couple of years. how does your membership report or collect data on the reporting of incidents? >> the see something say something is basically a slogan, ad campaign. we're involved in the first observer program. the first observer program has a

call center. we have over 160,000 program members. last year, we received over somewhere near 4,000 calls. some have been referred for further action, so the see something say something campaign is basically a ad campaign. the first observer has training involved with it and tells people who to look for. >> mr. blankenship. >> we train our entire workforce to report any instances and we have a 24/7 operation terrcente manned to take those calls. there's a call down tree or notification tree, so the more serious incidents get raised up quickly. it's distributed through the corporation as appropriate. >> congressman, thank you for the question and i would simply say the program has been effective in the trucking industry. we have two prime examples to

share in my testimony. you will note we make mention of an instant that occurred where a very alert employee of the trucking company saw suspicious chemicals coming through and residents made comment of that. took it up the chain of command as he had been trained to do and the end result of that see something say something scenario was terrorist attempt was -- and apprehended. another such incident, the american truck association ran the program, highway watch. i'm sure all of us here remember the washington sniper. it was that effectiveness of the community, see something say something, that that individual was apprehended by seeing something and saying something by a truck driver.

>> congressman in the freight rail industry and specifically csx, we have for a number of years, a similar program, which is basically training our employees to identify any suspicious or unusual activities to the equivalent of our 911 location or public safety coordination center or if it's a bonn fied concern, to 911. we'll gather that information and we typically then will report that further up to our trade association. the association of american railroads through their rail alert network and they will then move it forward to other federal security agencies. oftentimes we'll make individual contacts to tsa at their operation center out in herndon and even perhaps to the d.o.t. center here in washington. >> yes, sir, we've trained 19,000 employees in the see

something say something program as well as the general public. we've developed a program called pass for amtrak security and safety and any and all reports with our national communication center that are investigated at the local level and those have a substantive representatives at the task force, so it's been a very successful program for us. >> i think the gentleman i want to revisit something. i think the program is too heavy in personnel and based on its earlier history was able to get by with about 100 inspectors. but certainly, no more than 200 would be necessary based on what i've heard prior to this hearing and from y'all. i'd like to start with mr. morris.

is that your view? would you agree or disagree with that observation? yes or no? our you can plead the fifth if you're scared. >> i agree. >> mr. blankenship. >> i agree. >> mr. byrd. >> agree. >> mr. elliot. >> agree. >> chief? >> i'll give you a more equalled answer. >> i thought everybody was going to be just a badge of koushcour- >> the numbers, i don't turn away any help. but it's got to be the right kind of help. if they're not doing the right kind of thing, increasing the numbers doesn't help. you know, whatever the number turns out to be, it needs to be the right thing. >> you just basically concurred with the other gentleman when you say you don't need that many people. if it were up to y'all and we could reallocate the money being spent on 300 of those 400

inspectors and put them into a grant program, now, several of you have talked about grants that pay for canine assets. it could be some other security asset. would you think that would be a higher and better use of the money? start with mr. morris. >> yes, sir, we would support that. >> in my statement, i referred to the inner city bus and how effective that has been. >> mr. byrd? >> we would agree. >> mr. elliot? >> congressman, i think we'd like to see more ris based and not just raw manpower. >> would the grants accomplish that? >> yes, it could. >> mr. chief. >> i'm a proponent of the expansion of canine without qualificatio qualifications. >> i'm glad you're helping me get that on record because i'm going to try to bring that amendment when we proceed to the floor with this. i do think that this money could be used better in these various grant programs. mr. blankenship, you mentioned

earlier, and this will be my last question. that tsa wouldn't work with you on trying to put canine assets in at modest expense. what was the problem? >> just couldn't coordinate the activities. why not come by the ground terminal, have a canine unit do a quick run and we weren't able to break that silo down. we asked to have that reconsidered. we think that could be very valuable at an incremental cost. >> you told the right person. i think i'm going to be able to help you with that. >> thank you very much, sir. >> any more questions? sure. >> you indicate that you would not turn away the extra support or help. how can tsa do a better job or

what kind of support do you need? could you use? >> they've been very helpful in packing baggage screening, helping us multiply our forces. they've been helpful in the canine aspects. those efforts that actually do something in the field to enhance boots on the ground is what i'm doing for. >> also, and each one of you, if you could just respond. in the june 2008 report titled tsa's mrks and coordination of security programs, several concerns were raised indicated that tsa's risk management did not account for their systems. in developing the fy 2012 security program, priorities and

evaluated submissions, how do you think dh is s can can improve on its transparency of transit security projects? >> chief, why don't we just start with you and -- >> decided that the with limited resources, again, those efforts that enhance front line operational efforts are the ones that in my opinion are the ones that are best invest ed in. those that encourage partnerships. for instance, we worked closely recently with the secret service

during the nato conference. and in fact, our canines were used by the secret service and helping protect that whole event. the efforts that helped the front line efforts are what i support. >> you will note that the entire team did an excellent job and we commend you for that. mr. elliot. >> congressman davis at first blush sh most folks may not think that the freight rail transportation network has much to do with passenger rail security, but that's really not the case. it seems we have over 8 million rail miles a year of passenger and commuter operations on our network. we're very, very fortunate to have great working relationships with my colleagues at amtrak and

some of the other passenger transportation networks. one of the things that we do through our police the president and yes, we use canine as well. happ happy to announce we're assigning a new unit to a community based effort we have in washington. we use our police department to basically go out and try to train other law enforcement agencies who are going to be the first to respond to a rail related terrorist incident. but again, we understand the importance of the transit security side and try to do our best to help our colleagues that deal with it on a more frequent basis. >> obviously, we're not involved in the mass transit of people in that, but just to respond in general as a citizen, again, i think it just highlights the fact from what my colleague mentioned.

communication, working together. partnerships are invaluable to making a successful program work and work and that's the only comment i would have. >> i think my comment is more geared towards greyhound as a private bus company. most of the security cost is our burden. that congress did include the inner city bus grant in 2012, but dhs chose not to fund it and we'd like to see that revisited. we think there's a big help and goes a long way with our customers. >> mr. morris. >> we applaud any efforts in surface transportation. transit, where ever, you know, our drivers count on the fact that they need to have the bridge there, the road there. the wheels aren't rolling, they're not making any money. >> thank you very much. i yield back. >> recognizes mr. turner for

additional questions if you have any. >> thank you. i will close with this. this invitation. next week, i will have administrator pistol before our committee. if there's anything you'd like me to ask him, tee it up. mr. morris? >> yes, sir, i'd like to ask him if any future grants are going to be out there for home land security efforts, if he's going to dedicate more money. >> excellent. will do that. i would like to have the same on inner city bus coordination and better coordination of viper teams. coordination on time and day and so forth. we don't need them coming in on days we don't have passengers. >> mr. byrd. >> trucking industry would like to know when our quick readers are going to be available to