[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
LAST LINE OF DEFENSE: THE FEDERAL AIR MARSHAL SERVICE 10 YEARS AFTER
9/11
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION SECURITY
of the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 16, 2012
__________
Serial No. 112-69
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
76-515 PDF WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
__________
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
Peter T. King, New York, Chairman
Lamar Smith, Texas Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
Daniel E. Lungren, California Loretta Sanchez, California
Mike Rogers, Alabama Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas
Michael T. McCaul, Texas Henry Cuellar, Texas
Gus M. Bilirakis, Florida Yvette D. Clarke, New York
Paul C. Broun, Georgia Laura Richardson, California
Candice S. Miller, Michigan Danny K. Davis, Illinois
Tim Walberg, Michigan Brian Higgins, New York
Chip Cravaack, Minnesota Jackie Speier, California
Joe Walsh, Illinois Cedric L. Richmond, Louisiana
Patrick Meehan, Pennsylvania Hansen Clarke, Michigan
Ben Quayle, Arizona William R. Keating, Massachusetts
Scott Rigell, Virginia Kathleen C. Hochul, New York
Billy Long, Missouri Janice Hahn, California
Jeff Duncan, South Carolina
Tom Marino, Pennsylvania
Blake Farenthold, Texas
Robert L. Turner, New York
Michael J. Russell, Staff Director/Chief Counsel
Kerry Ann Watkins, Senior Policy Director
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
I. Lanier Avant, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION SECURITY
Mike Rogers, Alabama, Chairman
Daniel E. Lungren, California Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas
Tim Walberg, Michigan Danny K. Davis, Illinois
Chip Cravaack, Minnesota Jackie Speier, California
Joe Walsh, Illinois, Vice Chair Cedric L. Richmond, Louisiana
Mo Brooks, Alabama Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
Peter T. King, New York (Ex (Ex Officio)
Officio)
Amanda Parikh, Staff Director
Natalie Nixon, Deputy Chief Clerk
Vacant, Minority Subcommittee Lead
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Statements
The Honorable Mike Rogers, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Alabama, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation
Security....................................................... 1
The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Transportation Security........................................ 2
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Homeland Security:
Prepared Statement............................................. 21
Witnesses
Mr. Robert S. Bray, Assistant Administrator for Law Enforcement,
Director, Federal Air Marshal Service, Transportation Security
Administration; Accompanied by Michael Novak, Assistant
Administrator, Training and Workforce Engagement,
Transportation Security Administration, and Roderick J.
Allison, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Law Enforcement,
Deputy Director, Federal Air Marshal Service, Transportation
Security Administration:
Oral Statement................................................. 4
Joint Prepared Statement....................................... 6
Mr. Charles K. Edwards, Acting Inspector General, Office of the
Inspector General, Department of Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 8
Prepared Statement............................................. 10
LAST LINE OF DEFENSE: THE FEDERAL AIR MARSHAL SERVICE 10 YEARS AFTER
9/11
----------
Thursday, February 16, 2012
U.S. House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Transportation Security,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:27 p.m., in
Room 311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Mike Rogers
[Chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Rogers, Cravaack, Turner, Jackson
Lee, and Richmond.
Mr. Rogers. The committee on Homeland Security Subcommittee
on Transportation Security will come to order. This
subcommittee meeting is today to discuss the important work of
the Federal Air Marshal Service. I want to thank every one of
our witnesses for being here today and the time and commitment
it took for you to prepare your remarks, and the inconvenience
of making time for one of these hearings. I can tell you what
you have to offer helps us a lot as policymakers. So we
appreciate your time and effort.
As a senior Member of this committee since its creation,
and in leadership of three unique subcommittees, I have focused
my energy on ensuring that we do not just address the past, but
that we are adequately equipped to respond to the threats of
today and tomorrow. We all know that the outcome of one of the
darkest days in our Nation's history could have been very
different if we had Federal Air Marshals on those planes. But
the reality is the terrorists have adapted to our security
measures and changed their tactics. We saw this on Christmas
day in 2009 and in other attempted attacks since 9/11.
The threat of an IED being detonated aboard an aircraft is
very real. With an annual budget approaching $1 billion, we
need to ask the question of whether today's Federal Air
Marshall Service is capable of preventing current and future
terrorist threats? What new efficiencies can be gained to
reduce the cost of the program?
In the aftermath of 9/11, the Federal Air Marshal Service,
or FAMS, evolved into the primary law enforcement entity within
TSA deploying air marshals on countless domestic and
international flights everyday. TSA has undergone many changes
since its formation after 9/11, but FAMS has largely maintained
its autonomy throughout the years. Both its annual budget and
its day-to-day operations and training are separate from the
rest of TSA.
Recently Administrator Pistole announced sweeping changes
to TSA's internal organization and structure, which included
the Federal Air Marshals Service. I want to ensure that this
reorganization does not set the air marshals back in any way
particularly with respect to training operations or adding
unnecessary layers of bureaucracy.
While I can understand TSA's desire to restructure itself
amidst all the criticism it gets, it should not make these
types of decision in haste. The ultimate goal should be to
provide security while reducing the cost to the taxpayer in a
tight economy. So if reorganizations such as this do not lead
to any cost saving, it is difficult to see the logic behind it
or to support it.
From what we have been told, TSA's reorganization will not
result in any tangible cost savings. I would urge the witnesses
today and other officials at TSA and DHS to look at this
committee as a partner in your efforts. The sooner we are
informed of the changes you plan to make, the better. Today I
look forward to hearing directly the leadership of Federal Air
Marshal Service about these recent reorganizational changes,
how air marshalls are adapting to the constantly revolving
threats we face from terrorists and ways we can reduce the
burden on taxpayers.
With that I now recognize the Ranking Member of the
subcommittee, the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee for 5
minutes for her opening statement.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Good afternoon. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman. I would like to thank the witnesses for being here
today to discuss the Federal Air Marshals Service. I would also
like to thank Chairman Rogers who knew of my interest and my
request for this hearing for holding this important and timely
hearing, and to take a closer look at the Federal Air Marshal
program and discuss the recent findings in a report released
last week by the Department of Homeland Security inspector
general.
The Aviation Transportation Security Act of 2002 designated
the Federal Air Marshal Service as a law enforcement
organization within the Transportation Security Administration.
Prior to September 11, the Federal Air Marshals comprised a
workforce of 33 sky marshals. After 9/11, it became clear that
a 33-person unit would not be sufficient to protect the
American flying public from a new threat. The idea of Federal
Air Marshals, I believe, is again, as I have said often in this
committee, part of the front line of defense of the American
homeland. Our FAMS were vastly expanded to address when our
abilities exposed on 9/11. The Federal Air Marshal serves as
the last line of defense for thousands of passengers on flights
both domestic and international.
While FAMS police our skies and protect passengers, we must
wonder what happens when they leave the airport and return to
the office. In the last 3 years, we have learned about a
hostile work environment epitomized by the use of a crude game
to demean FAMS who are women, minority group members, or gays.
Today the inspector general will testify that 47 percent of
the survey responders fear retaliation if they speak out about
workplace conditions. Today, we will hear from the leadership
of FAMS about the plan to correct the workforce issues that
have long plagued this organization.
We will also hear from the inspector general about the
recommendations he has made to remedy the issues at FAMS.
Compounding my concern about the inspector general's report is
the fact that the workforce challenges at FAMS are not new. In
2005, the GAO released a report recommended that FAMS developed
a communication strategy to change, to share expectations, and
report related progress within its workforce.
In 2009, the GAO released another report recommending that
the director of FAMS take appropriate actions to increase of
the usefulness the workforce satisfaction surveys. Today we
will receive testimony from the IG recommending that the
director of FAMS provide increased transparency and forms of
communication across the organization, particularly between
rank-and-file FAMS and management. It seems that every
examination of FAMS, whether by GAO or the inspector general,
finds a workplace that needs improved transparency, increased
communication, and opportunities for upward mobility. Knowing
some of the FAMS myself and seeing them at work, I know that
they are however dedicated and committed to serving the
American people. We must allow everyone to serve in dignity as
a FAM on behalf of the American people.
It is also clear that every examination since 2005 has
yielded a promise from FAMS management that practices would
improve and conditions would change. It appears that those
promises have not been kept. They do not want to hear about new
promises. Today I want to learn how FAMS leadership will keep
its commitment to those Federal Air Marshals who risk their
lives everyday to protect the flying public.
I frankly, in conclusion, would like to see FAMS increased
and introduce H.R. 71 which would increase the number of
Federal Air Marshals for certain flights, require criminal
investigative training for such marshals, create an office and
employment ombudsman for marshals, and for other purposes.
I am committed to the excellence of FAMS, I want to see the
leadership and the team working together, but as well, working
together with a diverse force, if you will, that can work
harmoniously on behalf of the American people. I look forward
to hearing from Director Bray on what actions he intends to
take to direct workforce challenges once and for all. With that
Mr. Chairman, thank you so very much and I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. I thank the gentlelady and other Members of the
committee are reminded their opening statements can be
submitted for the record. We are pleased to have several
distinguished witnesses before us today on this important
topic. Let me remind the witnesses that their entire statements
will appear in the record and you will be given 5 minutes to
summarize it, so we can get to the Q&A.
First witness is Mr. Robert Bray, he currently serves as
the assistant administrator for law enforcement and the
director for the Federal Air Marshal Service, TSA. Mr. Bray
began his career with FAMS in 2003 as an assistant special
agent in charge of the mission operation center at the FAA,
technical center in Atlantic City, New Jersey. Mr. Bray is
joined by two of his TSA colleagues, Mr. Michael Novak who
currently serves as the assistant administrator for training
for workforce engagement, and Mr. Roderick Allison who
currently serves as a deputy assistant administrator for law
enforcement.
Mr. Bray will be offering an opening statement on behalf of
himself, Mr. Novak, and Mr. Allison. He is now recognized for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT S. BRAY, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR LAW
ENFORCEMENT, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL AIR MARSHAL SERVICE,
TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION; ACCOMPANIED BY MICHAEL
NOVAK, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, TRAINING AND WORKFORCE
ENGAGEMENT, TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, AND
RODERICK J. ALLISON, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR LAW
ENFORCEMENT, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FEDERAL AIR MARSHAL SERVICE,
TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Bray. Good afternoon and thank you, Chairman Rogers,
Ranking Member Jackson Lee, and distinguished Members of the
subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today
about the Transportation Security Administration's office of
law enforcement, Federal Air Marshal Service, and our mission
to detect and deter terrorist threats to the Nation's
transportation systems. With me today is former FAMS Deputy
Director Mike Novak, who is now TSA's assistant administrator
for the Office of Training and Workforce Engagement. Mr. Novak
was a former assistant director of training for the FAMS.
In addition, I also want to introduce Mr. Roderick Allison,
who was recently named as the deputy director of FAMS and has
most recently served as our assistant deputy director for
flight operations.
I would also like to introduce Joe Samuels and Mel Caraway,
they are respectively, the new supervisory air marshals in
charge of the Orlando and Dallas office.
Mr. Rogers. Welcome.
Mr. Bray. Before 9/11, the FAA employed just 33 air
marshals who flew primarily international missions. Following
the passage of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act,
FAMS was officially transferred to TSA. Today Federal Air
Marshals are the primary law enforcement entity within TSA and
are deployed on flights with the United States and around the
world, and Federal Air Marshals make great personal and
professional sacrifices every day in the performance of their
vital mission to our Nation.
Transformation within the Department of Homeland Security
led to a period in which the FAMS transition to the U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, ICE, before
returning to TSA in 2005. Today OLE/FAMS serves DHS in a
variety of critical roles. We operate the Freedom Center, which
contains the transportation security operation center also
known as the TSOC, as well the
K-9 training program.
Within TSA's office of security operations, we administer
the visible intermodal prevention and response program, which
is also known as VIPR, which is aimed at enhancing transit
security.
Additionally, we manage the personnel security clearance
process for TSA, and conduct both joint vulnerability
assessments for airports as well as man portable air defense
systems, or MANPADS assessments. Ten years after 9/11, our
mission is no longer separate from TSA's other transportation
security missions.
Today our responsibilities make us a key component of TSA's
transportation security counterterrorism strategy. As you know,
TSA is currently implementing an agency-wide transformation
initiative. The plan reflects a fully integrated FAMS realigned
and operational divisions that support and enhance the TSA law
enforcement mission. This new structure will enable TSA to more
efficiently and effectively execute its day-to-day National
security mission imperatives, establish a meaningful and
realistic strategic vision for its law enforcement programs and
maintain the flexibility needed to address evolving and
emerging threats to the Nation's transportation systems.
A highly trained workforce is essential to the success of
TSA. Transitioning the FAMS training center and other FAMS
training programs to the newly established office of training
and workforce engagement under Mike Novak is an important step
toward reaching that goal.
FAMS training will remain an independent division under the
Office of Training and Workforce Engagement continuing to serve
our specific mission needs while TSA benefits from the
professional experience of former FAMS executives like Mike
Novak.
Law enforcement is our essential function and this
transformation will enhance FAMS' ability to focus on what it
does best, providing TSA with an agile responsive and
professional law enforcement component that compliments the
overall TSA mission.
FAMS will streamline from five divisions to three: We will
have the flight operations division; the security services and
assessment division; and the field operations division.
Remaining functions from the former administrative and
technical services and training and workforce programs
directorates will transfer to the appropriate TSA division, and
some supporting elements will transfer to the FAMS business
office.
This model supports a field-centric approach allowing
branch managers and staff to focus solely on the needs and
management of the local field offices.
This approach also provides the ability to consider field
office consolidation issues within our concept of operations.
This alignment will also contribute to correcting some issues
noted in the report by the Office of Inspector General. The OIG
investigated allegations of misconduct and illegal
discrimination and retaliation in the FAMS, and the report
found those allegations to be unfounded. The OIG did find,
however, that the FAMS suffered from a lack of management
cohesion, negative workforce perceptions, and a lack of
compliance with headquarters' direction in the matters of
office operations and philosophy. Changing this management
structure and reinvigorating the office of field operations
addresses some of the OIG's concerns by creating a foundation
for a real, positive, cultural change to our workforce.
We welcome the OIG review, and will continue working
closely with them going forward. We realize there is work to be
done as we continue to mature and advance our organization. We
look forward to working with Congress and the OIG to ensure the
agency's continuing improvement. Additionally, as the OIG
report noted, these challenges have not and will not interfere
with the mission of the FAMS. Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member
Jackson Lee, we thank you for the opportunity to appear before
you today, and look forward to answering your questions.
[The joint prepared statement of Mr. Bray, Mr. Novak, and
Mr. Allison follows:]
Joint Prepared Statement of Robert S. Bray, Michael Novak, and Roderick
J. Allison
February 16, 2012
Good afternoon Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member Jackson Lee, and
distinguished Members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify today about the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA)--Office of Law Enforcement/Federal Air Marshal
Service (OLE/FAMS) and how the changes we are implementing will help us
achieve our mission to detect, deter, and defeat terrorist threats to
the Nation's transportation systems while streamlining our operations.
I would like to take this opportunity to introduce the former
Deputy Director of the FAMS, who is now TSA's new Assistant
Administrator, Mr. Mike Novak of the Office of Training and Workforce
Engagement (TWE). Mr. Novak was also a former Assistant Director of
Training for the FAMS at TSA. In addition, I would like to introduce
Mr. Roderick Allison, who was recently named as the new Deputy Director
of OLE/FAMS and who most recently served as our former Assistant
Director for Flight Operations.
The FAMS was officially transferred from the Federal Aviation
Administration to TSA by the Aviation and Transportation Security Act.
Over a 4-year period, the FAMS transitioned from TSA to the Department
of Homeland Security's (DHS's) U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
component, and then back to TSA. It has been about 6 years since our
reintegration with TSA. Today, Federal Air Marshals (FAMs) serve as the
primary law enforcement officers within TSA and are deployed on both
international and domestic flights. Last year, TSA signed 23
international agreements with foreign partners, including nine
agreements permitting the deployment of FAMs on flights between the
United States and the respective countries and 14 agreements on
technical assistance and information sharing. Also of note in 2011, the
Military Operations Research Society selected a University of Southern
California (one of the DHS Science and Technology Directorate (S&T)
Centers of Excellence partners) collaborative project with S&T and FAMS
on randomizing Federal Air Marshals (FAMs) flight schedules for the
prestigious Rist Award, the first non-Department of Defense winner in
history.
Today, OLE/FAMS serves DHS in a variety of critical roles. We are
responsible for operating the Freedom Center, which contains the
Transportation Security Operations Center (TSOC), the operational
communications nexus for all of TSA, and the National Explosives
Detection Canine Training Program (NEDCTP). We also manage the
personnel security clearance process for TSA and conduct both Joint
Vulnerability Assessments for airports as well as Man Portable Air
Defense System (MANPADS) Vulnerability Assessments.
In addition to our aviation security responsibilities, in
conjunction with the Office of Security Operations, we administer the
Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response Program (VIPR), which is
aimed at enhancing the intermodal security response of our State and
local transit partners. TSA has 25 multi-modal VIPR Teams working in
transportation sectors across the country to prevent or disrupt
potential terrorist planning activities, and the TSA appropriation for
fiscal year 2012 includes funds for an additional 12 new VIPR Teams.
Ten years after 9/11, our mission is no longer separate from TSA's
other transportation security missions. Today, our responsibilities
make us a key component of TSA's transportation security
counterterrorism strategy.
As you may know, TSA has recently undertaken an agency-wide
transformation initiative. The OLE/FAMS part of the TSA transformation
focuses specifically on transportation law enforcement services across
TSA. The transformation plan has created a fully integrated OLE/FAMS,
realigned into three operational divisions that support and enhance the
TSA law enforcement mission. Under the plan some portion of non-mission
elements such as financial and administrative services as well as
technology management are transitioning to appropriate centralized TSA
entities. This proposed structure will enable TSA to more efficiently
and effectively execute its day-to-day National security mission
imperatives, establish a meaningful and realistic strategic vision for
its law enforcement programs, and be flexible to address evolving
threats to the Nation's transportation systems.
In order to achieve this vision, it's crucial that TSA has a well-
trained and highly motivated workforce. Transitioning the FAMS Training
Center and other FAMS training programs to the TWE and leveraging the
expertise of the men and women who train our FAMs are important steps
towards that goal.
Throughout this transition, we will continue to sustain the high
level of FAMS training currently underway. FAMS training will remain an
independent division under TWE, continuing to serve our mission needs,
while TSA will benefit from the professional experience of former FAMS
executives like Mr. Novak.
ole/fams structure
Law enforcement is our essential function. The OLE/FAMS
transformation will enhance FAMS's ability to focus on what it does
best--providing TSA with an agile, responsive, and dependable law
enforcement component that complements the overall TSA mission. OLE/
FAMS will streamline from five directorates to three divisions: The
Flight Operations Division, the Security Services and Assessments
Division (SSA), and the Field Operations Division (FLD). Remaining
functions from the former Administrative and Technical Services and
Training and Workforce Programs directorates will transfer to the
appropriate TSA division and some supporting elements will transfer to
the Business Management Office.
Flight Operations Division
The Flight Operations alignment will remain largely unchanged from
its original function. It will maintain the management of FAMS daily
deployment, 24/7 incident management, TSA's emergency preparedness
functions, the Federal Flight Deck Officer program and other associated
programs. Training functions relating to those programs will migrate to
TWE while the TSOC and FAMS Systems Operational Control functions will
continue as part of Flight Operations.
Security Services and Assessments Division
SSA's structure will also remain similar to the present
composition, including the NEDCTP, MANPADS mitigation, airport
vulnerability assessments, and physical security. However, some
section-level functions will be transformed to permit greater attention
to emerging mission areas. These include responsibility for TSA's
Insider Threat Section. The Insider Threat Section will enable TSA to
better identify and mitigate risks posed by individuals with inside
knowledge or access to the transportation system.
Field Operations Division
The FLD will align under four branches, three responsible for the
oversight of a roughly equal number of Field Supervisory Air Marshals
in Charge (SACs) and organized based on location. The fourth branch
will manage all other field-related law enforcement programs, including
those which will realign to OLE/FAMS from other TSA components. I am
encouraged that this structure will enable us to better serve the men
and women in the 25 field offices who protect us every day.
In particular, the Law Enforcement Programs Branch will contain
three sections--VIPR/Joint Coordination Center, Tactical Support, and
Law Enforcement Information Coordination. The new Tactical Support
Section is composed of operational elements which sustain Field Office
operational functions.
The Critical Incident Response Program (CIRP), which primarily
serves OLE/FAMS Field Operations, offers organization-wide support
services in response to any critical incident such as line of duty
exposure to traumatic events. CIRP provides assistance to OLE/FAMS
employees and their families in times of personal or professional
crisis and helps employees meet life's challenges in an effort to
remain healthy, engaged, and productive. This branch will also liaise
and collaborate with TWE on delivery of OLE/FAMS-focused training
products and oversee the provision/compliance of FAMs' recurrent
training for headquarters operational personnel.
The Law Enforcement Information Coordination Section (LECS),
formerly known as the Information Coordination Division, has become
more significant given its increasing TSA duties, particularly as it
assumes the role of primary Federal Bureau of Investigation operational
contact.
The transformation of OLE/FAMS Field Office management is designed
to be consistent with other TSA operational components and to permit
future smooth transitions in the field. OLE/FAMS Field Office Branch
Chiefs will align congruently with the Office of Security Operations'
(OSO) Regional Managers. This model will permit closer coordination
between senior OLE/FAMS and OSO managers, which is expected to improve
TSA operational performance and professional collaboration.
The model also enables OLE/FAMS to pursue a ``field-centric''
approach allowing branch managers and staff to focus solely on
supporting the field, and the management of offices/SACs. Moreover, a
field-centric approach will also provide the time and space to consider
issues of field office consolidation and/or right-sizing congruent with
the FAMS Concept of Operations or emerging law enforcement trends/
challenges.
In addition, the realignment will contribute to correcting the
internal challenges noted in a January 2012 report by DHS's Office of
the Inspector General (OIG), which investigated allegations of
misconduct and illegal discrimination and retaliation in the FAMS.
While the report found those allegations to be unfounded, the OIG did
find that the FAMS suffered from a lack of management cohesion,
negative workforce perceptions, and a lack of compliance with
headquarters direction on matters of office operations and management
philosophy. Changing the management structure and re-invigorating the
focus of Field Operations addresses the OIG's concerns by laying the
foundation for real, positive cultural change to our workforce. We
welcome the OIG review and have worked closely with them throughout
this process.
conclusion
We believe the changes we are implementing will help strengthen our
ability to provide comprehensive transportation security. They are
designed to enable TSA to more efficiently and effectively execute our
day-to-day operations and cultivate a strategic vision for our law
enforcement programs while maximizing the flexibility needed to address
unforeseen challenges and threats to the Nation's transportation
systems.
Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member Jackson Lee, we thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today. We look forward to answering
your questions about the mission and operation of the Federal Air
Marshal Service and the organizational changes that may result from the
TSA transformation.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Bray, for your testimony. We
appreciate you being here today, and we know your time is
valuable.
Our next witness, Mr. Charles Edwards, is the acting
Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security, and
no stranger to this committee. I am glad to have you back. Mr.
Edwards assumed this position in February 2011. Previously, he
served as Deputy Inspector General for the Department of
Homeland Security. Mr. Edwards has over 20 years of experience
in the Federal Government, and has held leadership positions at
several Federal agencies, including TSA, the U.S. Postal
Service Office of Inspector General, and the United States
Postal Service. The Chair now recognizes the famous Charles
Edwards.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES K. EDWARDS, ACTING INSPECTOR GENERAL,
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Mr. Edwards. Good afternoon, Chairman Rogers, Ranking
Member Jackson Lee, and distinguished Members of the
subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify
regarding allegations of misconduct, discrimination, and
retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service, or FAMS. My
office reviewed these allegations and published the results in
a recent report titled ``Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal
Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal
Service.''
In early 2010, several Members of Congress reached out to
my office requesting a review of FAMS after media reports
surfaced regarding misconduct, illegal employment
discrimination, and retaliation in the FAMS Orlando field
office. Included within the media reports were descriptions of
an agency rife with cronyism, age, gender, and racial
discrimination; and unfair treatment in promotions,
assignments, and discipline. In addition, there were
troublesome photographs of a game board modeled after the
television show Jeopardy. The game board was created and
displayed by supervisors in the Orlando office, with categories
using derogatory nicknames to refer to certain individuals'
race, gender, and sexual orientation.
My office agreed to undertake an inspection to evaluate
these allegations. Our goal was to determine whether the facts
confirmed the specific allegations about the conditions in the
FAMS Orlando field office, and whether the alleged conditions
existed Nation-wide. As part of a review, we looked at
applicable laws, regulations, directives, policies, and
procedures. Furthermore, we conducted more than 300 interviews
of officials, as well as current and former FAMS personnel.
Additionally, we performed site visits to FAMS field offices,
including Orlando, and reviewed internal FAMS records.
With respect to the Jeopardy game board, this incident was
isolated in the Orlando field office, and was not the source of
allegations in other offices. All three individuals responsible
for the game board's creation are no longer with FAMS. Overall,
we determined that although several employees experienced
discrimination, a finding of wide-spread discrimination and
retaliation within FAMS is not supported. Unfortunately,
employees' perceptions of discrimination, retaliation, and
favoritism are extensive. During our inspection, we identified
many factors that contributed to strained relations and were
the basis of allegations of management misconduct. For example,
due to the nature of the agency's mission, FAMs have limited
interaction with their supervisors. Evaluating FAMs based on
such limited interaction is difficult, and may lead to
disagreements. We noted inconsistency and the need for greater
transparency and expediency in the agency's handling of
employee misconduct.
We also found that discipline was perceived as unfair,
inconsistently applied, and not at the appropriate severity
level for the offense, and used for retaliatory purposes.
Several other unclear operational and administrative FAMS
policies lead to employees' negative perceptions. As part of
our inspection, we also conducted a survey of the FAMS
workforce. Approximately 50 percent of the workforce responded.
The survey results echoed what we observed during our site
visits. One quarter of respondents feel that they have been
discriminated against, 47 percent feel retaliation, and 55
percent feel favoritism is tolerated. The survey also revealed
that most, but not all, supervisors disagree with the non-
supervisory Federal Air Marshals' perception of these issues.
As concerning as these issues are, they do not appear to
have compromised the FAMS mission. Despite the concerns
expressed in field offices, 76 percent of survey respondents
either agreed or strongly agreed that the people they worked
with cooperate to get the job done. Nonetheless, these
allegations add unnecessary distraction at all levels at a time
when mission tempo is high and many in the agency are becoming
increasingly concerned about workforce burnout and fatigue.
Thus, our report included 12 recommendations to help mitigate
these issues. These include identifying other means to evaluate
FAMS performance, clarifying and enhancing administration of
the discipline process, enhancing guidance for ground-based
assignments. We would like TSA to develop a strategy to address
perceptions of discrimination, retaliation, and favoritism, as
well as the workplace issues identified in our survey.
While TSA and FAMS leadership are committed to addressing
these issues, and have implemented several proactive
initiatives, we will continue to work with TSA and the
Department to identify ways to strengthen communication and
increase transparency within the Federal Air Marshal Service.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks, and I
would be happy to answer any questions that you or other
members may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Edwards follows:]
Prepared Statement of Charles K. Edwards
February 16, 2012
Good afternoon Chairman Rogers, Congresswoman Jackson Lee and
distinguished Members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify on allegations of misconduct and illegal
discrimination and retaliation in the Transportation Security
Administration's (TSA) Federal Air Marshal Service (FAMS).
In January 2010, CNN reported allegations of misconduct and illegal
employment discrimination and retaliation in the FAMS Orlando field
office. The reports described an agency rife with cronyism; age,
gender, and racial discrimination; and unfair treatment in promotions,
assignments, and discipline. Also included were photographs of a game
board modeled after the television show ``Jeopardy!'' created and
displayed by supervisors there, with categories containing derogatory
nicknames referring to veterans, females, African-Americans, Hispanics,
and lesbians and gays. We reviewed the allegations in Orlando and
throughout the agency as well as the circumstances surrounding the game
board.
In January 2012, we issued an inspection report, Allegations of
Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal
Air Marshal Service (OIG-12-28). The purpose of our review was to
evaluate allegations of misconduct and illegal discrimination and
retaliation in FAMS. Our goal was to determine whether the facts
confirmed the allegations in the FAMS Orlando field office and the
extent to which the alleged conditions existed Nation-wide. We made 12
recommendations to help TSA mitigate the issues we identified,
strengthen communication, and increase transparency. It is important to
point out that that these issues do not appear to have compromised the
FAMS mission. TSA and FAMS senior leadership are committed to
addressing these issues and have implemented several proactive
initiatives.
Although individual employees may have experienced discrimination
or retaliation, our review does not support a finding of widespread
discrimination and retaliation within FAMS. However, employees'
perceptions of discrimination, retaliation, and favoritism are
extensive, and we heard too many negative and conflicting accounts of
events in certain locations to dismiss them. Tension and limited trust
between non-supervisory and supervisory personnel, poor communication,
and limited transparency are not only damaging morale, but also are at
the center of fears of retaliation and perceptions that management is
mistreating its workforce.
Although we spent a great deal of time talking to non-supervisory
Federal Air Marshals about their individual concerns or situations, we
did not conduct investigations of their specific allegations against
supervisors. Determining whether one employee retaliated or
discriminated against another is a complex matter that may not be
resolved until reviewed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
the Merit Systems Protection Board, or a court of law. Beginning in the
Orlando field office, we engaged FAMS employees at all levels and at
multiple locations around the country to gain a better understanding of
how the organization operates and obtain their insights into incidents
that have fueled the allegations. One of our challenges was discerning
the views of non-supervisory and supervisory Federal Air Marshals and
FAMS' senior leadership.
We assessed the circumstances surrounding the game board styled
after the television game show ``Jeopardy!'' and the FAMS Orlando field
office's response. The game board existed in Orlando only, and was not
the source of allegations of retaliation and discrimination in other
field offices. The game board was created by a Supervisory Federal Air
Marshal, a Federal Air Marshal, and a civilian training officer in the
training office. All three of these individuals have since left FAMS. A
former Federal Air Marshal who photographed the game board while it
hung in the training office did not show it to Members of Congress or
the media until after FAMS removed him in December 2009. He said he
drew a second game board, which contained more patently offensive
categories, to help the Congressional staff better understand the
original game board's categories. Images of both game boards were
distributed to several Federal Air Marshals in Orlando and Tampa. The
recreated game board generated outrage, anger, and sadness.
We asked personnel in the Orlando field office how management
responded to the situation. The Supervisory Air Marshal in Charge (SAC)
and the Assistant Supervisory Air Marshals in Charge held a series of
briefings describing the game board as an improper, sophomoric joke by
training staff. Accounts of managers' attitudes while addressing the
matter varied. Managers felt they had responded appropriately. Non-
supervisory Federal Air Marshals recalled being disappointed by the
briefings because managers came across as insensitive for not
expressing accountability, contrition, or appropriate outrage. While we
were conducting our site visit, FAMS leadership met with the Orlando
SAC at headquarters. In July 2010, the Orlando field office underwent
some personnel changes. These included the SAC being reassigned to a
position in headquarters. In August 2010, Director Bray met with the
entire Orlando field office to address workforce issues. In January
2011, the former Orlando SAC retired from FAMS.
In the past several years, numerous workforce issues have
undermined relationships between managers and Federal Air Marshals,
created tension and mistrust within the work environment, and led to
many complaints and allegations against managers. These issues spawned
an ``us versus them'' mentality among non-managers, immediate managers,
and senior managers. We noted different leadership styles and attitudes
among managers and supervisors in the field offices we visited, but
most acknowledged that relationships could be better and said they are
trying to improve communication with the workforce to address these
issues. At the same time, many Federal Air Marshals seemed unwilling or
unable to adapt to changes or recognize that senior management has made
efforts to address work-life issues brought to their attention. The
inability of both supervisors and Federal Air Marshals to ``let go'' of
past incidents that were previously addressed was a recurring theme
during our review.
We identified other numerous factors that contributed to strained
relations and became the basis for many allegations of management
misconduct. Due to the nature of the agency's mission, Federal Air
Marshals have limited interaction with their supervisors. Evaluating
Federal Air Marshals based on such limited interaction is difficult and
may lead to disagreements. We noted inconsistency and the need for
greater transparency and expediency in the agency's handling of
employee misconduct. Discipline was perceived as unfair, inconsistently
applied, not at the appropriate severity level for the offense, and as
being used for retaliatory purposes. Everyone agreed the process takes
too long. In addition, several other operational and administrative
aspects of FAMS, such as how it administers ground-based assignments,
promotions, and restriction from flying international missions, need
more clarity.
We also conducted a survey of the FAMS workforce. Approximately 50%
of the workforce completed the survey. The survey results echoed what
we observed during our site visits. One-quarter of respondents feel
they have been discriminated against, 47% of respondents fear
retaliation, and 55% believe favoritism is tolerated. The survey also
revealed that most, but not all, supervisors disagree with non-
supervisory Federal Air Marshals' perceptions of these issues. Negative
perceptions are also prevalent regarding discipline and favoritism,
even among managers and respondents who do not believe they are victims
of discrimination, retaliation, or unfavorable treatment. Employees who
fear retaliation are also less likely to report misconduct or illegal
activity.
These issues do not appear to have compromised the FAMS mission.
Despite the concerns expressed in field offices, 76% of survey
respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that the people they work
with cooperate to get the job done. However, these allegations add
unnecessary distraction at all levels at a time when mission tempo is
high and many in the agency are becoming increasingly concerned about
workforce burnout and fatigue.
Management has been addressing workforce issues for several years,
and continues to address them. Initiatives include the creation of the
SAC Advisory Council, FAMS Advisory Council, and several working
groups. In addition, all-hands meetings were held to discuss and
identify workplace issues, develop recommended courses of action, and
designate committees to plan for implementation of the agreed course of
action based on operational requirements. These initiatives have
provided useful forums for increasing communication and collaboration
between senior leadership and the workforce, particularly the field
offices, and addressing workplace issues. To promote a common culture
within FAMS and address the ``us versus them'' perceptions, the
Director accepted and implemented many of the FAMS Advisory Council's
recommendations. In addition, the Director met with headquarters
personnel to discuss changing the cultural mindset at all levels of the
organization from one of a top-down management structure to one of
solving problems for Federal Air Marshals who protect flights worldwide
every day.
The report contained 12 recommendations aimed at strengthening
communication, increasing transparency, and mitigating the issues
identified in our review. TSA concurred with the recommendations. We
recommended that TSA:
identify other means to obtain information on Federal Air
Marshals' performance that could assist supervisors when
preparing evaluations;
provide guidance regarding the types of incidents FAMS
should and should not report to the Office of Inspection in an
incident tracking report;
provide additional guidance and clarification regarding
employee ineligibility for favorable personnel actions when
there is a pending disciplinary matter that spans performance
cycles;
provide guidance and clarification regarding how long prior
corrective or discipline actions should be considered and for
which types of incidents;
develop a comprehensive system to track all stages of the
discipline process;
establish additional guidelines that set forth selection
criteria for Federal Air Marshal ground-based positions;
provide additional guidance and clarification for awards and
in-position increases, including whether they can be rotated
among staff and given to the same employee in back-to-back
years, and to what extent managers should consider discipline
issues;
evaluate whether FAMS should remove specific limits on the
number of Senior Federal Air Marshals allowed in each office
and establish eligibility criteria for designation as a Senior
Federal Air Marshal based on specific mission and length-of-
service achievements, in addition to the performance
requirements already in place;
communicate specific application criteria to all J-band
promotion applicants at the beginning of each promotion cycle;
review evaluation and assessment procedures for the J-band
promotion process and revise as necessary to ensure that
certification lists contain the best qualified candidates;
develop guidelines to define when Federal Air Marshals can
be removed from international flight schedules, including what
performance and conduct issues can cause a Federal Air Marshal
to be removed and the duration of the restriction; and
create and implement an action plan to address workplace
issues identified in our survey.
The Office of Inspector General looks forward to continuing to work
with the Department to identify ways to strengthen communication and
increase transparency through our audit and inspection work.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. Thank you for
the opportunity to testify and I welcome any questions from you or
Members of the subcommittee.
Mr. Rogers. Great. I thank you. The Chair now recognizes
himself for questions. I want to start, Mr. Bray, you know,
everybody knows what the economic situation in this country is
right now, and particularly the economic situation of this
Government. We are broke. I was frankly pleased to see the
budget number that the President tendered for Homeland overall,
because it wasn't as bad as it could have been, and it wasn't
nearly as bad as what we are dealing with in the Armed
Services. I serve on the House Armed Services Committee. So
thankful for what we have got. But having said that, we still
have the reality of budgets being tight for a while.
So in thinking forward about what we are going to be
dealing with, I look at your organization, and you are right at
$1 billion right now. That is a huge amount of money. Can you
point to one or two things that you are proud of that have been
cost-saving measures that you have taken recently, let's say,
in the last year?
Mr. Bray. Sir, I think we have many cost-saving measures I
can point to. The ones that I speak about are associated with
many different things that we look at throughout the years as
being more efficient and trying to provide as effective a layer
of security that we can. We always work, we have all of our
employees--the vast majority of our costs when we travel is for
the cost of the hotels.
So we work with both the GSA and our own people to try to
bring down those costs. We are always studying the costs of the
hotels when our people have to stay overnight or when they
travel overseas. Obviously, a significant portion of our costs
involve when we travel overseas. So we focus on that on a very
regular basis. I have weekly meetings with our budget staff to
look at our costs. If you look at the model that we have for
our organization, and you go to our field offices, we have a
different model for our field offices as far as the overhead
costs. Where we had one central training facility in each field
office, we have decentralized training for our field offices.
We have very few offices. We use the hoteling concept, where
people share a cubicle--because obviously our FAMs, their job
is to be in the air, not to be in the office except for on a
very regular basis when they are training, or when they are in
there for certain other administrative duties, or to meet with
their supervisors on that infrequent basis when they are able
to do that. So we try to save costs there. We are always
looking for other ways to save costs.
Mr. Rogers. What I would like to ask you, I know the
President has asked you all to come up with proposals to cut
your budget by a certain number next year or maybe the year
after, I would like to ask that you provide for the committee a
proposal that would show us--I know that my friend and
colleague over here wants to give you a whole lot more people,
and I may go along with her on that. I haven't decided. But
just for our edification and to help us prepare for what may
come. You know, next year, we may be the Defense Department,
where we are being told to take a big hit. I would like for you
all to tender a proposal to this committee showing that if you
had to reduce 5 percent of your budget each year for the next 5
years, this is what you have to give up. It would just force
you to prioritize and say now we are doing this, we think it is
important, we want to keep doing it, but if you take 5 percent
of the money away, this is what is going to drop off.
If you would do that for me, I would appreciate it. Can you
tell me what kind of time frame would be reasonable? Because I
don't want to put too much on you. Everybody is looking at each
other: Who is going to do this?
Mr. Bray. Sir, if it is agreeable with you, how about 30
days? That would give us time to go through it.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The information was retained in committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Rogers. That is fine. That is very fine. I appreciate
that. As I talked about in my opening statement, the threat has
changed significantly since 9/11 because terrorists have
modified their tactics based on security measures we have put
in place. To the extent that you can discuss this in an opening
setting, what is FAMS doing to adapt to the evolving threat to
stay ahead of the terrorists? For example, are air marshals
prepared to deal with the threat of an IED? I will take that,
Mr. Allison or Novak, whichever one of you all.
Mr. Novak. I will take that. Yeah, that is something that
we train for. So the way the training academy works is we train
to general tenets, if you will, principles about how to conduct
themselves on a plane. So you can take that from anything from
an unruly passenger all the way up to an IED, if you will, on a
passenger, or someone trying to take over the plane. So we do
train to those things.
Mr. Rogers. So what would you do if you had a suspected
bomber on the plane? Let's say the Christmas day bomber,
somebody tipped off to you they saw him going into the restroom
and he had an explosive in his hand, whatever. Can you talk
about that in open session?
Mr. Novak. Not really. We don't like to discuss tactics.
But we do have those scenarios, those very scenarios that you
talk about.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you. My time has expired. The Chair now
recognizes the Ranking Member for any questions she may have.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
think, if you could, tell me what the President's budget, Mr.
Bray, has submitted for your agency? What are the cuts from
2012, fiscal year 2012?
Mr. Bray. For 2012 the proposal from the President is--for
2011 we received $927 million. The proposal is $966 million for
2012.
Ms. Jackson Lee. What did you receive in 2011? I didn't
hear you. What did you receive?
Mr. Bray. Our enacted appropriation in 2011 was $927
million.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Okay. You are now at?
Mr. Bray. Nine hundred sixty-six million.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Okay. So you went up, if I am hearing your
numbers correctly.
Mr. Bray. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Do you foresee--I think we can generally
ask you for the numbers--do you foresee cuts in FAMs, working
FAMs besides management?
Mr. Bray. I think we would, yes, ma'am. Under the current
proposal.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I am not asking for any numbers. Let me
move to the points that I made in my opening remarks. I think
in 2009, you testified regarding two initiatives that were
going to be implemented in fiscal year 2010 with the goal of
improving FAMS workforce issues and morale. You called one
program the FAM mentoring program, and you also referenced a
promotion restructure as the Senior Federal Air Marshal title
change across FAMS. Now, again our IG points to low workforce
morale stemming from the Senior Federal Air Marshal program, as
I can recollect from his testimony and report. Can you brief me
as to why you believe this program seemingly has had an
opposite effect, this introduction of the Senior Federal Air
Marshal program?
Mr. Bray. The purpose of the Senior Federal Air Marshal
program is to recognize those flying FAMs who have served for a
certain period of time and they have served well. It is a
recognition of their effort and dedication and professionalism
towards our Nation. There is no monetary sums to that. There is
no other sums for promotion or anything else. It is just a
recognition of their service. So we have a certain percentage
of FAMs that are eligible for that. We are reviewing that. We
have a FAM Advisory Council that has made some recommendations
to us. We have worked with our supervisory advisory council. I
believe in the very near future, we are going to make some
changes to that program that I think are based on the
recommendations from the FAM Advisory Council.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Does it also take into consideration the
comments made or the report made by the Inspector General?
Mr. Bray. Yes, it does.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me ask the Inspector General, you
indicate in your testimony that you didn't seem to find the
widespread discrimination and retaliation supported. Explain
that to me. What methods did you use to determine that they
were not supported? We are still getting emails indicating that
people are still seemingly treated in a disparate manner.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, ma'am. We visited five sites. We
conducted interviews from everybody who wanted to talk to us,
either at the office or at an off-site. We also did a survey
where 50 percent of FAMs from all demographics responded to the
survey. The perception of discrimination was widely there. But
when we looked at it, when we went out to do this inspection,
we did not want to address individual complaints because there
is a process for that. There is the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission, the MSPB, and also court of law.
So a lot of these were already in litigation. So we looked
to see, there was so much distrust between supervisory Federal
Air Marshals and non-supervisory air marshals. However, we did
not find a widespread discrimination.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Which one of your recommendations points
to trying to cure that problem?
Mr. Edwards. If you look at recommendations 2 and 4----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Of the 12?
Mr. Edwards. And 12?
Ms. Jackson Lee. No, I said of the 12?
Mr. Edwards. Of the 12, 2 and 4 talks about the discipline
process. And 10 talks about the promotion. People feel that
there is not a fair process there. Then 12 we talk about an
action plan for the survey.
Ms. Jackson Lee. So you are suggesting this is what needs
to be done, what needs to be implemented?
Mr. Edwards. Right away, yes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Have you had any response back on your
report from the agency?
Mr. Edwards. Yes. They concurred. Recommendation 9 is
already closed even before our report could be issued. So they
are working with us.
Ms. Jackson Lee. In your report, you include charts that
isolate various workplace issues by office. One in particular
happens to fall in the State of Texas. It seems that the Dallas
office leads for workplace problems. Would it be possible for
your office do an in-depth review of the Dallas office to
determine what is going on in that office? If that was
occurring in one or two other offices, which has come to our
attention, would that be possible?
Mr. Edwards. It is possible. But however, ma'am, I would
like to point out that we spent nearly 1\1/2\ weeks in Dallas
field office. We interviewed around 60 personnel, including
managers, supervisors, and FAMs. We collected a lot of survey
data. So we believe since we need to give time for FAMS
leadership and for the recommendations to work its way through.
I will be glad to look at the Dallas field office. Also they
have new leadership there. So we want to give some time for
that. Even the five sites we picked up, we looked at the MSPB
data to see where the most complaints were. Of course, Dallas
was one of them. But I feel that we need give some time for
this recommendation to take effect.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me close by, since I have a lot on
this particular issue, let me ask, Mr. Bray--thank you very
much, Mr. Edwards--I am looking at your diversity, I am looking
at the participation of women. I see some progress has been
made in the number of women working in FAMS. A lot of work
remains to be done, particularly when it comes to the SES
positions. For instance, there are only four women serving in
SES positions. What I would just want to hear from you, Mr.
Bray, is your outreach in recruiting women and minorities. Also
in my H.R. 71, I talk about criminal investigative training,
and how that would--how would you welcome that kind of training
coming to FAMS?
Mr. Bray. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to that.
We have a very strong outreach to the diversity groups that we
work with, whether it is the National Organization of Black Law
Enforcement, the Women in Federal Law Enforcement. I would just
like to say that the current active president for Women in
Federal Law Enforcement is a Federal Air Marshal. We also work
with them on diversity in recruiting. As I said, we have a very
strong program to attend the conferences every year. I try to
attend at least two or three conferences every year.
We have senior leadership at every conference to put forth
the word that we want to hire a diverse workforce and to
maintain that workforce. As far as the criminal investigator
training program, I believe it is essential that we continue to
look at our training. As we see terrorism evolve, as we see
them adapt and evolve, we--and I, it is incumbent upon me to
make sure that my employees have the most forward-thinking and
advanced training they can get as far as being able to respond.
We all know that when FAMs are in the air, there is no chance
of backup for them. So it is incumbent upon me to make sure
they have the most advanced training we can. We work with
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center on some of those
initiatives.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. I thank the gentlelady. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Cravaack, for any
questions he may have.
Mr. Cravaack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Bray, thank you
for your testimony today. One of the things, as a Federal
Flight Deck Officer and an airline pilot for 17 years, one of
the things that we learned after 9/11, you can't have a single
point security check. It is a layered approach. It takes a lot
of people to make sure that from when you initially buy your
ticket to when you enter the aircraft there is all types of
layers of security. In regards to, and I will try to say this
very gently, yesterday we had Secretary Napolitano here, and
she said the last line of defense was the cockpit door. In view
of the layered security, how would you go about with the
Secretary's comment? Would you like to redefine her remarks?
Mr. Bray. I think I would like to say that----
Mr. Cravaack. Or do you want to take a pass? Feel free.
Mr. Bray. I think what I would say is I think it is very
important that all the layers of security are strong and
vibrant. I think as far as the FFDO program, they are an
important layer of our security. I personally appreciate all
the work and professionalism and dedication they have, and all
the time they volunteer to help us in our very important role
in aviation security.
Mr. Cravaack. Did the Secretary ask you at all in regards
to the budgetary cuts for FFDOs? Were you involved in that at
all?
Mr. Bray. We do have discussions. I had discussions through
my chain of command about that, yes, sir.
Mr. Cravaack. Okay. Can you give us an idea of who decided
to cut the FFD program in half, basically?
Mr. Bray. I don't have personal knowledge on that. But as
was referred to earlier, we all have to make some very
challenging decisions in the current economic climate and going
forward. So we always make decisions based on the risk base and
the intelligence that we receive.
Mr. Cravaack. Sure. I understand risk-based. I understand
that correctly. But I am assuming, and we won't talk numbers,
but I am assuming that the numbers in regards to the budget,
the number of FAMs are going to stay relatively the same. Would
that be a correct statement or an incorrect statement?
Mr. Bray. I think that is generally correct.
Mr. Cravaack. Okay. A generally correct statement. Now,
cutting the program in half, we have what, 29,000 flights a day
I think, cutting that program in half with the same amount of
FAMs, but basically cutting the program for FFDOs in half, that
is going to leave a lot of open sky, in my opinion. I am just
very concerned on especially one of the most efficient programs
that I can see in the Federal Government. I think it costs $15
for every flight to have an FFDO on in comparison to other
flights.
For example, FFDOs take their personal days off for
training. They pay for their own lodging. They pay to go to
training. I think it is one of the most efficient programs that
we have, and provides one of the most essential last-ditch
efforts. Plus, it is an extremely covert program. You are not
going to be able to tell if there is an FFDO in that cockpit or
not. It is one of the chief deterrents that I can see. They are
seamless with the FAMs. The majority of people don't know FAMs
are on board as well. It is very disconcerting to me to see
that this program was cut in half. Quite frankly, it is peanuts
in the overall spectrum of things, $23 million, they cut it
down to $12 million.
I think the other questions that I would have would
probably be best suited for a more secure environment. But I
just wanted to get your comments on do you think that with a
cut in the program, the FFDOs right now, do you think it would
affect our security overall?
Mr. Bray. We are still examining the proposals. But what we
hope to do with the proposed cuts is to really look at the
overhead that we have in the program as far as some of the
training support contracts we have and the requalification
areas. We hope to look at some of the overhead we have within
our program as far as the number of training sites, to cut that
possibly, to really try do what we can to minimize the impact
on the flying FFDOs. So we are looking at that first. So I
would like to defer any further comment on that until we really
study it.
Mr. Cravaack. Unfortunately, as I understand it, there
hasn't been any new FFDOs in the program for what, over a year
now? Would that be a correct statement? They have not had a
training class for over a year for new FFDOs.
Mr. Allison. Mr. Congressman, I believe we were scheduled
to have 200 or so FFDOs this year.
Mr. Cravaack. How many?
Mr. Allison. Two hundred or so.
Mr. Cravaack. Two hundred? Okay. That would be new
information for me then. Thank you very much. My time has
expired. I will yield back negative time.
Mr. Rogers. I thank the gentleman. I have just got a couple
of more questions before we go into secure session. This is for
Mr. Bray. As a result of TSA's transformation initiative, I
understand that law enforcement officials had their titles
changed from regional directors to branch managers, which is a
title more common for a bank or an insurance company or
whatever. You know, these are high-performing law enforcement,
well-trained personnel. We have heard about the morale
problems. Is this something you have been getting feedback on
about this title? No problem at all?
Mr. Bray. Sir, Mr. Chairman, I would respond to that by a
couple years ago, based on some advice that--I guess it is
about a year and a half ago now--based on advice from our FAM
Advisory Council, I started changing the titles for some of our
supervisors. Previously, they used to be called special agents
in charge. That I think caused a gulf between the Federal Air
Marshals and the supervisors. So now when I introduced the
Supervisory Federal Air Marshals from Orlando and Dallas, they
are now called Supervisory Federal Air Marshals. So we have
been undertaking that initiative, that transformation for a
while as far as changing of titles. I have not heard any
feedback that that has affected anyone's morale in the
leadership or in the organization.
Mr. Rogers. Good. We have heard significant concern about
the decision to merge FAMS training with the training of
Transportation Security Officers, TSOs. The responsibilities of
these two groups are very different. Notably, air marshals are
law enforcement officials, whereas TSOs, who conduct passenger
screening, are not law enforcement. What is your view on the
decision to merge TSA's training programs, thereby shutting
down separate FAMS' training operation? I guess that would be
Mr. Novak?
Mr. Novak. Yeah, I would be happy to talk about that. So
what you are saying is correct. But when you look at it, there
is actually a separate law enforcement division and a separate
Transportation Security Officer division. So the training won't
actually be the same.
Mr. Rogers. The same training.
Mr. Novak. Yeah. So the FAMS training center in Atlantic
City will remain as such, and the FAMS will go there for their
training. So nothing really will impact the way we train FAMS.
Mr. Rogers. Okay. So you don't see that training suffering
any?
Mr. Novak. I don't.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Novak, you are the first person to assume
the role of assistant administrator for the newly created
Office of Training and Workforce Engagement. Why was the
decision made to establish the new office?
Mr. Novak. So, what I think when Mr. Pistole came in as the
administrator from his previous time at the FBI, he looked at
the organization, and there were actually training departments
in different sections of the organization. It just brought out
the obvious question, why would there be training departments
in other programs? So effective, efficient, here we are about
efficiency, is it better suited to move things together and
combine forces?
Mr. Rogers. So what are your responsibilities?
Mr. Novak. My responsibilities are coordinating all the
training that happens throughout the organization. So
consolidating all those folks to make sure the messaging is the
same--the training tactics are different, but the messaging for
the organization is the same, and making sure--okay.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Edwards, you talked a little while ago
about widespread perception problems. Even though your
investigation didn't find the problems that were alleged, you
said that there were extensive perception problems. Why do you
think that is?
Mr. Edwards. Well, based on the interviews, Chairman, and
the survey responses, there is a perception because the non-
supervisory FAMs and the supervisory FAMs, they don't trust
each other. There is also a perception that senior leadership
doesn't hold supervisory FAMs accountable. So there is so much
of mistrust. In terms of getting awards, there is no common
criteria. Every office kind of determines it differently. When
so little time is spent of a flying FAM with their supervisor,
how are they going to measure their performance?
So we recommend that TSA provide guidance on awards and
promotions, even promoting getting promoted to a supervisory
FAM. There needs to be transparency in the application process.
You know, there should be some criteria. So we have made a
number of changes, and FAMS leadership and TSA have accepted
that.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes
the Ranking Member for any additional questions she may have.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Chairman, your line of questioning raises
several questions. Mr. Novak, the role that you play deals with
training for all of the TSO personnel, including TSO officers?
Mr. Novak. That is correct.
Ms. Jackson Lee. So you coordinate for everyone, including
FAMS?
Mr. Novak. Correct.
Ms. Jackson Lee. You have obviously structured training
that differs from TSO officers to FAM officers. Is that
correct?
Mr. Novak. Correct.
Ms. Jackson Lee. In your training, are supervisors involved
in the training?
Mr. Novak. It is funny you mentioned that. I am actually
preparing a course for supervisory TSOs. There is supervisory
training right now. But one of the things that I have heard has
been that our supervisor training for TSOs could be better. So
I have looked at it. I just came into existence January 1 of
this year. But I have had a meeting yesterday for 2 hours with
the group that is reviewing all that. I am going to release
something in the next couple months that will be a 2-week
program that will hopefully give them the fundamentals that
they need.
Ms. Jackson Lee. So for FAMS, do you include FAM
supervisors in as well as the FAM officers for training?
Mr. Novak. Yes. There is a supervisory course that we
introduced probably a year-and-a-half ago for FAM supervisors.
It touches on a lot of the same things that I am going to
incorporate into the TSO training.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I think you have a wide purview. So how
are you going to really answer the question? I probably
disagree with my very fine Inspector General. I think the
report on its face is a very good report. But you cannot have
perception, widespread perception without reality. Somebody is
feeling, and there is the reality of discrimination or lack of
communication between supervisors and the line officers. What
are you going to do about that?
Mr. Novak. So I will----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Because you are in the training and
professional development.
Mr. Novak. That is right. So I can offer more training. But
what we have done is, as I mentioned earlier, this supervisor
course that Director Bray implemented is really a great start.
Now, that was implemented while the Inspector General was doing
their review. So I think we are turning the tide. We are
talking about having our folks make sure that our FAMs succeed.
We are giving them every opportunity to succeed.
Ms. Jackson Lee. What did you say Mr. Bray had that you
thought was working?
Mr. Novak. We introduced a supervisory training course.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Is that talking to them about
communicating and working with the line officers? So what is
your mode for assessment? What is your audit to determine that
it works?
Mr. Novak. Well, that will be surveys like this in the
future. But there is an assessment actually that the
supervisors take to review what they think their skills are.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Can I ask you then to be part of--
obviously, I don't run your shop, but can I have you see the
connection? If you are training and trying to break through on
some of the issues that Mr. Edwards has commented on, you need
to see whether your training is working, whether people are
learning to work together, whether there are barriers, or the
walls of discrimination that are perceived through your
training can be broken down.
Mr. Novak. That is true.
Ms. Jackson Lee. So I would like to, as I said, the
Chairman has given you a request, I note it was 30 days, but I
would like to get a report back on what impact or what are the
results of the training on one of the major elements of the
Inspector General's report, and whether or not you are crafting
training to improve the diversity relationships. Whether or not
you have training that allows or says supervisors can supervise
people from all backgrounds. Which is obviously you can put it
in the terms of the structure of your training. I would like
that report back.
Mr. Novak. Very well. Thank you.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Allison, you are under law
enforcement. Would criminal investigation training be helpful
to your FAMs?
Mr. Allison. Yes, Ms. Jackson Lee, I believe it is, or
would be. I was actually hired as a Federal Air Marshal back in
1998 out of the military. I actually attended the criminal
investigator training program. There are a number of lesson
plans and training attributes there that we believe would be
beneficial to our workforce.
Ms. Jackson Lee. What is your perception of the need for
breaking what people perceive to be discriminatory treatment?
Mr. Allison. I actually think what Mr. Edwards outlined is
right on the money. Clearly, we need to improve our sense of
team as an organization. The way we operate and the infrequency
of contact between the management and the FAMS that are flying,
it is just human nature that unfamiliarity breeds mistrust. So
we certainly need to bridge the divide where it comes to the
communication aspects. We need to invoke and mandate more
transparency on our policies and procedures with respect to the
issues that are on the minds of the flying Federal Air
Marshals. Also more consistency in our field offices.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Are you recruiting--where are you mostly
recruiting your officers from? Are they retired Federal law
enforcement, or do they come from--are you going out in the
field and finding--not to reflect on anyone that is retired,
but are you looking in other places, colleges, for example?
Mr. Allison. Yes, ma'am. I actually, a while back, did a
recruiting trip at some HBCUs a number of years ago. But we
have representatives across the offices in the field who are
recruiters. They go to colleges. They make all folks aware of
the announcements when they come out for the vacancies for the
Federal Air Marshals. We also work very closely with the
different law enforcement groups to actively recruit and give
people experiences and sort of a look inside the organization
to offer that as a venue for employment. I actually championed
an effort recently with NOBLE for summer internship positions.
They give opportunities for those who may not would have had
them.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask unanimous
consent--thank you very much, Mr. Allison--to submit the
Ranking Member of the full committee, Mr. Bennie G. Thompson's
statement into the record.
Mr. Rogers. Without objection, so ordered.
[The statement of Mr. Thompson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson
February 16, 2012
In July 2009, this committee's Subcommittee on Management,
Investigation, and Oversight held a hearing on FAMS personnel issues.
Director Bray was a witness at that hearing and will appear before this
subcommittee today. At that hearing in 2009, Director Bray acknowledged
that retaliation had been an on-going problem across FAMS. Director
Bray promised to fix this problem. Clearly, no remedial action was
taken.
Today, 47% of FAMS believe that retaliation is part and parcel of
the FAMS workplace. I am not a management expert. But I know that if
half of your workforce will admit to believing something, the other
half believe it but won't admit to it. So as we begin today's hearing,
I need to focus on the practical ramifications of having 47% of your
workforce believe that retaliation is a way of life.
In the most recent report released by the Inspector General, he
noted that many discrimination complaints had been filed. However, he
also noted that the overwhelming majority of those complaints had been
resolved in favor of the agency.
I have no doubt that the Director and others will testify that
these favorable resolutions mean that the agency is free of
discrimination. Luckily, I was not born yesterday. I know that in order
to win a discrimination complaint, there must be evidence and there
must be witnesses.
That gets me back to the 47% who fear retaliation. In an agency in
which almost half of the employees fear retaliation, few will speak up.
Few will testify. So few cases will be won by employees. Given these
practical considerations, I do not believe that anyone should make
proud assertions about a lack of discrimination at FAMS.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to be very clear. The flying FAMS
have an exemplary record of protecting the flying public. But I must
admit that it may be miraculous that their job performance has not been
adversely affected by the dysfunctional environment of the FAMS field
offices.
So today, I want to take a moment to commend each flying FAM for
the work they do. But we cannot continue to take this work for granted.
How much longer are we willing to risk that the well-documented
dysfunction of these offices does not affect the performance of the
flying FAMS? As Members of this committee, we need to take a long and
hard look at this agency and make leadership changes that will preserve
and protect the safety of the flying public.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I have likewise a question that I would
like to submit into the record and ask, it will be of Mr. Bray,
and I would specifically like a sooner rather than later, like
an immediate response. It deals with the issue of FAMS and the
hiring of numerous U.S. Secret Service retirees and their
annuity. So it is a detailed question. I think it is
appropriate for a detailed response. I ask unanimous consent to
submit the question into the record in writing, but also to ask
for an expeditious response, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. Without objection, so ordered.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The information was not submitted at the time of publication.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank the gentlelady. Mr. Allison, I am glad to hear you
all are doing that. By the way, I have three HBCUs in my
district. If you want to send some recruiters down to
Talladega, Tuskegee, or Alabama State, I would appreciate it.
Ms. Jackson Lee. You would do well to do so. Come on down
to Texas Southern University.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Cravaack, do you have one more question
before we go to closed session?
Mr. Cravaack. Yeah. If you don't mind, I would like to
follow up. Minnesota, good central work ethic. I just want to
let you know about those guys too. I had a question. It was
alluded to, Mr. Allison kind of, was the discrimination
basically between the front line troops and supervisory? Is
that where I am seeing--or not discrimination, but distrust? Is
that what we are seeing or----
Mr. Allison. Yes, Mr. Congressman. The Federal Air Marshals
who are in the field offices flying the missions every day, and
then the first-line supervisors who are the--principally, the
first-line supervisors.
Mr. Cravaack. I can understand that, because, you know,
usually FAMS are haze gray and underway. I mean, they are gone
constantly. They have to introduce themselves to their family
every now and then. So, you know, they have about as many
flight hours as a pilot. I understand that. So I think I heard
that. So it is from the front-line troops, the distrust from
front-line troops basically to the head shed.
Mr. Allison. To some degree, yes, sir.
Mr. Cravaack. Okay. Great. Thank you. I appreciate that. I
yield back.
Mr. Rogers. I thank the gentleman. In discussion with our
witnesses, we have agreed that the remainder of this discussion
is very sensitive in nature. The information to be discussed,
if it were disclosed, could endanger National security or
compromise sensitive law enforcement information. Therefore, I
consulted with the Ranking Member, and we are in agreement that
the remainder of today's hearing should be conducted in closed,
classified session.
Pursuant to rule 11 clause 2(g)2 of the U.S. House of
Representatives, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of
the hearing be closed to the public. Hearing no objection, we
will now recess and go down to the SCIF. By the way, I have a
hard stop at 4 o'clock. So if we could walk quickly, I would
appreciate it.
[Whereupon, at 3:20 p.m., the subcommittee proceeded in
closed session.]