[House Report 112-498]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
112th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 112-498
======================================================================
PUBLIC TRANSIT SECURITY AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT SUPPORT ACT
_______
May 30, 2012.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. King of New York, from the Committee on Homeland Security,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 3857]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Homeland Security, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 3857) to amend the Implementing Recommendations
of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 to require the Secretary of
Homeland Security to include as an eligible use the sustainment
of specialized operational teams used by local law enforcement
under the Transit Security Grant Program, and for other
purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon
with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do
pass.
CONTENTS
Page
Purpose and Summary.............................................. 2
Background and Need for Legislation.............................. 2
Hearings......................................................... 3
Committee Consideration.......................................... 5
Committee Votes.................................................. 5
Committee Oversight Findings..................................... 6
New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures 6
Congressional Budget Office Estimate............................. 6
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives............ 7
Congressional Earmarks, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff
Benefits....................................................... 7
Federal Mandates Statement....................................... 7
Preemption Clarification......................................... 7
Advisory Committee Statement..................................... 8
Applicability to Legislative Branch.............................. 8
Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation................... 8
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 8
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Public Transit Security and Local Law
Enforcement Support Act''.
SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION REGARDING USE OF GRANT FUNDS RELATING TO
OPERATIONAL COSTS OF PUBLIC TRANSIT SECURITY.
(a) In General.--Section 1406(b)(2) of the Implementing
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (6 U.S.C.
1135(b)(2)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraphs (E) through (H) as
subparagraphs (F) through (I), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the following new
subparagraph (E):
``(E) specialized patrol teams, as defined by the
Secretary in coordination with the recipients of grants
under this section, including the sustainment of such
teams without fiscal year limitation, as long as the
eligible public transportation agency applying for
grant funds to fund a specialized patrol team submits a
sustainment plan for maintaining in future years the
capability or capacity achieved with the grant
funds;''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take
effect on the date of enactment of this Act and shall apply to grants
made under section 1406 of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11
Commission Act of 2007 (6 U.S.C. 1135) on or after such date.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 1406(m)(1) of the
Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (6
U.S.C. 1135(m)(1)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (D) by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (E)--
(A) by striking ``10 percent'' and inserting ``50
percent''; and
(B) by striking the period and inserting ``; and'';
and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(F) $400,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2012 and
2013, except that not more than 50 percent of such
funds in each of such fiscal years may be used for
operational costs under subsection (b)(2).''.
Purpose and Summary
The purpose of H.R. 3857 is to amend the Implementing
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 to require
the Secretary of Homeland Security to include as an eligible
use the statement of specialized operational teams used by
local law enforcement under the Transit Security Grant Program,
and for other purposes.
Background and Need for Legislation
This bill directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to
allow Transit Security Grant Program (TSGP) funds to be used
for specialized patrol teams without fiscal year limitation. In
past years, transit systems could not allocate TSGP funding
toward the sustainment of specialized patrol teams without a
waiver from the Secretary of Homeland Security. After this bill
was introduced, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
modified its policy in the TSGP grant guidance for FY 2012, to
allow TSGP funds to be used for the sustainment of specialized
patrol teams. This bill codifies what DHS has agreed is
necessary through its grant guidance, and allows for future
TSGP funds to be used for the sustainment of specialized patrol
teams. H.R. 3857 eliminates the needless bureaucratic step of
forcing a transit agency to request a waiver in order to apply
for funds to sustain critical manpower to help deter a
terrorist attack. In doing so, it allows transit systems and
the police departments that secure them to have more certainty
in their planning of future security initiatives.
As amended, this bill requires TSGP recipients to submit
sustainment plans for maintaining the capability of the
specialized patrol teams in future years. The Committee notes
that these teams must be flexible to respond to changing
threats. Therefore, the Department should take this into
account as operational needs may change in future years.
Further, the Committee recognizes that grant recipients are
already required to submit lengthy, detailed justifications
with their grant applications for the projects they seek to
fund. These reports require significant man-hours and planning.
The sustainment plan requirement in this bill is not intended
to require grant recipients to provide written plans through an
additional duplicative process but to submit plans through the
DHS reporting process that currently exists. The Department
should take steps to streamline the reporting process and
provide guidance to grant recipients on the information to be
included in the sustainment plans.
As amended, the bill also raises the cap on operational
expenses from 10 percent to 50 percent of TSGP funds,
consistent with the percentage allowable under the State
Homeland Security Grant Program and Urban Area Security
Initiative. In the five years since TSGP was authorized in the
Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of
2007, transit agencies and local law enforcement have expressed
growing concern over the cap on operational expenses imposed by
the Congress. The important security benefit of patrol teams
and other operational assets has increased, not decreased, and
in most instances the Secretary of Homeland Security has used
vested authority to waive the 10 percent cap given the
realities on the ground. By making this a statutory change,
grantees would no longer have to seek waivers that require
additional man-hours, create difficulties in planning, and
serve to delay the expenditure of these vital security grants.
The bill also authorizes $400 million for TSGP grants for
each of fiscal years 2012 and 2013, except that no more than 50
percent of those funds in each of the fiscal years may be used
for operational costs. This vital grant program necessitates a
dedicated funding stream each year. Given the expiration of the
TSGP authorization in FY 2011, this bill would reauthorize the
program for FY 2012 and FY 2013 at the same level it received
in FY 2009.
Hearings
Although no hearings were directly held on H.R. 3857 in the
112th Congress, TSGP was discussed at multiple hearings.
The Committee on Homeland Security hearing entitled
``Securing Our Nation's Mass Transit Systems Against a
Terrorist Attack'' on May 4, 2011. The Committee received
testimony from Hon. John S. Pistole, Administrator,
Transportation Security Administration, Department of Homeland
Security; Hon. W. Craig Fugate, Administrator, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security;
Mr. Richard Daddario, Deputy Commissioner for Counterterrorism,
New York City Police Department; Mr. Richard L. Rodriguez,
President, Chicago Transit Authority; and Mr. Daniel O.
Hartwig, Deputy Chief--Operations, BART Police Department, San
Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART).
The Subcommittee on Transportation Security hearing
entitled ``Industry Perspectives: Authorizing the
Transportation Security Administration for FY 2012 and 2013''
on July 12, 2011. The Subcommittee received testimony from Mr.
Stephen Sadler, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Transportation
Threat Assessment and Credentialing, Transportation Security
Administration, Department of Homeland Security; Mr. Darrell S.
Bowman, Group Leader, Advanced Systems & Applications, Virginia
Tech Transportation Institute; Ms. Jeanne M. Olivier, A.A.E.,
Assistant Director, Aviation Security & Technology, Aviation
Department, The Port Authority of New York & New Jersey
testifying on behalf of the American Association of Airport
Executives; Mr. Martin Rojas, Vice President, Security &
Operations, American Trucking Association; and Mr. Randall H.
Walker, Director of Aviation, Las Vegas McCarran International
Airport, Clark County Department of Aviation, testifying on
behalf of the Airports Council International--North America.
In addition, the Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness,
Response, and Communications has also held hearings focusing on
homeland security grants at which the TSGP was discussed. On
March 20, 2012, the Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness,
Response, and Communications convened a hearing, ``Ensuring the
Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Transparency of Homeland
Security Grants (Part I).'' The Subcommittee received testimony
from Ms. Elizabeth Harman, Assistant Administrator, Grant
Programs Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Department of Homeland Security; Mr. Corey Gruber, Assistant
Administrator, National Preparedness Directorate, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security;
Ms. Anne L. Richards, Assistant Inspector General for Audits,
Office of Inspector General, Department of Homeland Security;
Mr. William O. Jenkins, Jr., Director, Homeland Security and
Justice Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office; and Hon.
Michael A. Nutter, Mayor of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
The Subcommittee held a follow up hearing, ``Ensuring the
Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Transparency of Homeland
Security Grants (Part II),'' on April 26, 2012. The
Subcommittee received testimony from Mr. James H. Davis,
Executive Director, Colorado Department of Public Safety,
testifying on behalf of the National Governor's Association;
Mr. Bryan Koon, Director, Florida Division of Emergency
Management, testifying on behalf of the National Emergency
Management Association; Ms. Hui-Shan Walker, Emergency
Management Coordinator, City of Hampton, Virginia, testifying
on behalf of the International Association of Emergency
Managers; Mr. Judson Freed, Director of Emergency Management
and Homeland Security, Ramsey County, Minnesota, testifying on
behalf of the National Association of Counties; Mr. Richard
Daddario, Deputy Commissioner, Counterterrorism Bureau, New
York City Police Department; Mr. Robert M. Maloney, Director,
Office of Emergency Management, Baltimore, Maryland; Chief Hank
Clemmensen, Palatine Rural Fire Protection District, testifying
on behalf of the International Association of Fire Chiefs; Mr.
Richard A. Wainio, President and CEO, Tampa Port Authority,
testifying on behalf of the American Association of Port
Authorities; and Mr. Michael DePallo, Director and General
Manager, The Port Authority Trans Hudson (PATH) Corporation,
testifying on behalf of the American Public Transportation
Association, who discussed TSGP at length.
Committee Consideration
The Committee met on May 9, 2012, to consider H.R. 3857,
and ordered the measure to be reported to the House with a
favorable recommendation, amended, by voice vote. The Committee
took the following actions:
The Committee adopted H.R. 3857, as amended, by voice vote.
The following amendments were offered:
An amendment offered by Ms. Richardson (#1); was NOT AGREED
TO, by voice vote.
Page 2, line 12, strike ``, as defined'' and all that
follows through ``this section'' on line 14.
Page 2, line 17, redesignate subsection (b) as subsection
(c).
Page 2, after line 16, insert a new paragraph ``(b)
Specialized Patrol Teams Defined''
An amendment offered by Mr. Cuellar (#2); was AGREED TO, by
a recorded vote of 15 yeas and 9 nays (Roll Call Vote No. 53).
Page 2, line 16, after ``limitation'' insert the following:
``, as long as the eligible public transportation agency
applying for grant funds to fund a specialized patrol team
submits a sustainment plan for maintaining the capability of
capacity achieved with the grant funds in future years''.
An amendment offered by Ms. Jackson Lee (#3); was AGREED
TO, by unanimous consent.
Page 2, line 16, strike ``or other''.
An amendment offered by Ms. Jackson Lee (#4); was AGREED
TO, by unanimous consent.
Page 2, after line 22, insert a new paragraph ``C)
Authorization of Appropriations''
Committee Votes
Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires the Committee to list the recorded
votes on the motion to report legislation and amendments
thereto.
The Committee on Homeland Security considered H.R. 3857 on
May 9, 2012. The following recorded votes were requested:
An amendment offered by Mr. Cuellar (#2); was AGREED TO by
a recorded vote of 15 yeas and 9 nays (Roll Call Vote No. 53).
The vote was as follows:
YEAS NAYS
Mr. Daniel E. Lungren Mr. Peter T. King
Mrs. Candice S. Miller Mr. Mike Rogers
Mr. Tim Walberg Mr. Michael T. McCaul
Mr. Chip Cravaack Mr. Gus M. Bilirakis
Mr. Joe Walsh Mr. Paul C. Broun
Mr. Patrick Meehan Mr. Benjamin Quayle
Mr. E. Scott Rigell Mr. Billy Long
Mr. Blake Farenthold Mr. Jeff Duncan
Mr. Bennie G. Thompson Mr. Robert L. Turner
Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee
Mr. Henry Cuellar
Ms. Yvette D. Clarke
Ms. Laura Richardson
Mr. Danny K. Davis
Ms. Janice Hahn
Committee Oversight Findings
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee has held oversight
hearings and made findings that are reflected in this report.
New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures
In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee finds that H.R.
3857, the Public Transit Security and Local Law Enforcement
Support Act, would result in no new or increased budget
authority, entitlement authority, or tax expenditures or
revenues.
Congressional Budget Office Estimate
The Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared
by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to
section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
May 25, 2012.
Hon. Peter T. King,
Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3857, the Public
Transit Security and Local Law Enforcement Support Act.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Megan
Carroll.
Sincerely,
Douglas W. Elmendorf.
Enclosure.
H.R. 3857--Public Transit Security and Local Law Enforcement Support
Act
Summary: H.R. 3857 would authorize appropriations for the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to make grants to state
and local governments to support security improvements to
public transportation systems. CBO estimates that implementing
the bill would cost $702 million over the 2012-2017 period,
assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts. Pay-as-you-go
procedures do not apply to this legislation because it would
not affect direct spending or revenues.
H.R. 3857 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary impact of H.R. 3857 is shown in the following table.
The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 400
(transportation).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
-----------------------------------------------------
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012-2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Authorization Level\a\.................................... 302 400 0 0 0 0 702
Estimated Outlays......................................... 15 266 246 119 35 21 702
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\While H.R. 3857 would authorize the appropriation of $400 million for 2012, $98 million has already been
appropriated for that year.
Basis of estimate: H.R. 3857 would authorize the
appropriation of $400 million in each of fiscal years 2012 and
2013 for DHS to provide grants to public transportation
agencies to enhance the security of public transportation
systems. Under current law, recipients of such grants can use
funds for a variety of purposes, including capital improvements
to infrastructure, training programs for staff, and public
awareness campaigns. H.R. 3857 would specify that such grants
could also be used for specialized patrol teams.
According to DHS, the Congress has already provided $98
million in 2012 for grants to public transportation agencies,
including Amtrak. CBO therefore estimates that fully funding
H.R. 3857 would require additional appropriations totaling $302
million in 2012 and $400 million in 2013. Assuming that H.R.
3857 is enacted in 2012 and that supplemental appropriations
are provided for 2012 as specified by the bill, CBO estimates
that resulting outlays would total $15 million in 2012 and $702
million over the 2012-2017 period. That estimate is based on
historical spending patterns for existing grant programs
administered by DHS.
Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.
Estimated impact on State, local, and tribal governments:
H.R. 3857 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in UMRA and would expand the authorized
uses of transportation security grants.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Megan Carroll; Impact
on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: J'nell L. Blanco;
Impact on the Private Sector: Paige Piper/Bach.
Estimate approved by: Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, H.R. 3857 contains the following
general performance goals, and objectives, including outcome
related goals and objectives authorized.
H.R. 3857 provides grant recipients with an additional
allowable use of TSGP funds without having to request a waiver
from the Department of Homeland Security.
Congressional Earmarks, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff
Benefits
In compliance with rule XXI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, this bill, as reported, contains no
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff
benefits as defined in clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of the rule
XXI.
Federal Mandates Statement
The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act.
Preemption Clarification
In compliance with section 423 of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974, requiring the report of any Committee on a bill or
joint resolution to include a statement on the extent to which
the bill or joint resolution is intended to preempt State,
local, or Tribal law, the Committee finds that H.R. 3857 does
not preempt any State, local, or Tribal law.
Advisory Committee Statement
No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b)
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this
legislation.
Applicability to Legislative Branch
The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate
to the terms and conditions of employment or access to public
services or accommodations within the meaning of section
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.
Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation
Section 1. Short title
This Act may be cited as the ``Public Transit Security and
Local Law Enforcement Support Act''
Section 2. Clarification regarding use of grant funds relating to
operational costs of public transit security
This section amends Section 1406(b)(2) of the Implementing
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Pub. Law
110-53) to allow Transit Security Grant Program funds to be
used for the sustainment of specialized patrol teams without
fiscal year limitation, as long as the eligible public
transportation agency applying for the grant funds submits a
sustainment plan for maintaining the capability or capacity
achieved in future years.
Effective Date.--This section is required to take affect on
the date of enactment and will apply to grants made under
Section 1406 of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11
Commission Act of 2007 (Pub. Law 110-53) on or after such date.
Authorization of Appropriations.--This section authorizes
$400,000,000 for TSGP grants for each of Fiscal Years 2012 and
2013, except that no more than 50 percent of those funds in
each of the fiscal years may be used for operational costs.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
IMPLEMENTING RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE 9/11 COMMISSION ACT OF 2007
* * * * * * *
TITLE XIV--PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SECURITY
* * * * * * *
SEC. 1406. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ASSISTANCE.
(a) * * *
(b) Uses of Funds.--A recipient of a grant under subsection
(a) shall use the grant funds for one or more of the following:
(1) * * *
(2) Operating uses of funds, including--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(E) specialized patrol teams, as defined by
the Secretary in coordination with the
recipients of grants under this section,
including the sustainment of such teams without
fiscal year limitation, as long as the eligible
public transportation agency applying for grant
funds to fund a specialized patrol team submits
a sustainment plan for maintaining in future
years the capability or capacity achieved with
the grant funds;
[(E)] (F) development of security plans under
section 1405;
[(F)] (G) overtime reimbursement including
reimbursement of State, local, and tribal
governments, for costs for enhanced security
personnel during significant national and
international public events;
[(G)] (H) operational costs, including
reimbursement of State, local, and tribal
governments for costs for personnel assigned to
full-time or part-time security or
counterterrorism duties related to public
transportation, provided that this expense
totals no more than 10 percent of the total
grant funds received by a public transportation
agency in any 1 year; and
[(H)] (I) other operational security costs
determined appropriate by the Secretary,
excluding routine, ongoing personnel costs,
other than those set forth in this section.
* * * * * * *
(m) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) There are authorized to be appropriated to the
Secretary to make grants under this section--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(D) $900,000,000 for fiscal year 2010, except
that not more than 20 percent of such funds may
be used for operational costs under subsection
(b)(2); [and]
(E) $1,100,000,000 for fiscal year 2011,
except that not more than [10 percent] 50
percent of such funds may be used for
operational costs under subsection (b)(2)[.];
and
(F) $400,000,000 for each of fiscal years
2012 and 2013, except that not more than 50
percent of such funds in each of such fiscal
years may be used for operational costs under
subsection (b)(2).
* * * * * * *