[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EXAMINING THE PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2019 BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE
TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND
PROTECTIVE SECURITY
of the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 12, 2018
__________
Serial No. 115-58
__________
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.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
30-896 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
Michael T. McCaul, Texas, Chairman
Lamar Smith, Texas Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
Peter T. King, New York Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas
Mike Rogers, Alabama James R. Langevin, Rhode Island
Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania Cedric L. Richmond, Louisiana
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania William R. Keating, Massachusetts
John Katko, New York Donald M. Payne, Jr., New Jersey
Will Hurd, Texas Filemon Vela, Texas
Martha McSally, Arizona Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey
John Ratcliffe, Texas Kathleen M. Rice, New York
Daniel M. Donovan, Jr., New York J. Luis Correa, California
Mike Gallagher, Wisconsin Val Butler Demings, Florida
Clay Higgins, Louisiana Nanette Diaz Barragan, California
John H. Rutherford, Florida
Thomas A. Garrett, Jr., Virginia
Brian K. Fitzpatrick, Pennsylvania
Ron Estes, Kansas
Don Bacon, Nebraska
Brendan P. Shields, Staff Director
Steven S. Giaier, General Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
Hope Goins, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND PROTECTIVE SECURITY
John Katko, New York, Chairman
Mike Rogers, Alabama Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey
Clay Higgins, Louisiana William R. Keating, Massachusetts
Brian K. Fitzpatrick, Pennsylvania Donald M. Payne, Jr., New Jersey
Ron Estes, Kansas Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
Michael T. McCaul, Texas (ex (ex officio)
officio)
Kyle D. Klein, Subcommittee Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Statements
The Honorable John Katko, a Representative in Congress From the
State of New York, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation
and Protective Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 1
Prepared Statement............................................. 3
The Honorable Bonnie Watson Coleman, a Representative in Congress
From the State of New Jersey, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee
on Transportation and Protective Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 4
Prepared Statement............................................. 5
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Homeland Security:
Prepared Statement............................................. 10
Witnesses
Mr. David P. Pekoske, Administrator, Transportation Security
Administration, U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 7
Joint Prepared Statement....................................... 9
Mr. Kevin M. Burke, President, Office of Security Operations,
Airports Council International North America:
Oral Statement................................................. 28
Joint Prepared Statement....................................... 30
Mr. Jeffrey David Cox, National President, American Federation of
Government Employees:
Oral Statement................................................. 32
Joint Prepared Statement....................................... 34
Appendix
Questions From Chairman John Katko for David P. Pekoske.......... 45
Questions From Ranking Member Bonnie Watson Coleman for David P.
Pekoske........................................................ 45
Questions From Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson for David P.
Pekoske........................................................ 45
Question From Honorable William R. Keating for David P. Pekoske.. 49
Questions From Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson for Jeffrey
David Cox...................................................... 49
Questions From Honorable William R. Keating for Jeffrey David Cox 50
EXAMINING THE PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2019 BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE
TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
----------
Thursday, April 12, 2018
U.S. House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Transportation
and Protective Security,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:04 p.m., in
room HVC-210, Capitol Visitor Center, Hon. John Katko (Chairman
of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Katko, Rogers, Higgins,
Fitzpatrick, Estes, Watson Coleman, Keating, and Payne.
Also present: Representatives Thompson and Demings.
Mr. Katko. The Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee
on Transportation and Protective Security will come to order.
The subcommittee is meeting today to examine TSA's fiscal year
2019 budget request. I now recognize myself for an opening
statement.
The Transportation Security Administration remains one of
the most crucial components to securing the homeland against
new and evolving threats to the traveling public and our way of
life. That is why it is incumbent upon this committee,
subcommittee to take a serious look at the recently submitted
fiscal year 2019 budget request to Congress, by which we are
provided the opportunity to understand the administration's
priorities as they relate to transportation security.
This year's budget request stands at $7.7 billion for
fiscal year 2019, which is a $143.8 million increase from last
year's request and approximately $500 million higher than
currently enacted funding levels. I believe that this budget
supports TSA's central mission of protecting the Nation's
transportation systems, and I am pleased to see the
administration better allocating resources based on risks and
current threats than prior years.
Under the leadership of Administrator Pekoske, it has
become clear that TSA continues to move in the right direction
by working to raise aviation security standards around the
world and recognizing we are only as secure as our weakest
link. At a time when threats to aviation remain troublingly
persistent, I am pleased to see Administrator Pekoske taking
necessary steps to improve TSA programs, processes, and
technologies.
However, I do have a number of concerns with some of the
proposed budgetary numbers in this year's request. For
instance, the request for funding to secure 145 computed
tomography systems seems woefully short of what is needed to
adequately deploy this advanced technology to airport
checkpoints, while I should note that there is about over 2,500
actual machines that need to be replaced Nation-wide, so 145
just seems like too much of a drop in the bucket. While I am
pleased that recently-enacted appropriations for 2018 provided
additional resources for CT deployment, I intend to continue
pressing this issue for fiscal year 2019.
Additionally, continuing on the theme from last year's
budget request, the administration is proposing further cuts to
its law enforcement officer reimbursement program. This program
provides critical funding to State and local law enforcement
entities charged with ensuring the safety and security of
America's airports, including TSA personnel. At a time when
public area security remains a top concern, I find this
proposal to be insufficient.
Last, TSA's proposed cuts to its Surface Transportation
Security Program come just after the 2017 attempted suicide
attack at New York City's Port Authority bus terminal, where
bus and mass transit commuters were targeted. While I agree
that TSA has consistently been unable to demonstrate the
security effectiveness of the agency's VIPR teams or surface
inspectors, I believe the agency should work to ensure
sufficient resources and support for surface transportation in
other ways.
Simply put, combining these cuts with additional cuts to
the Transportation Security Grant Program elsewhere in the
Department of Homeland Security's budget request seems out of
step with the vulnerability of surface transportation systems.
That is why the House recently passed a number of committee
bills aimed at ensuring TSA prioritizes surface transportation.
Despite these challenges, I believe that in general TSA is
making great strides to improved risk-based security and is
better reflecting risk in the budget than in prior years. I
hope that TSA will continue working to be even more responsive
to changing threats and that Administrator Pekoske will
continue to set a tone that encourages regular engagement with
stakeholders and empowers front-line personnel.
Administrator Pekoske, you have a lot of work cut out for
you, as you well know, and I hope you will use your position to
root out problems at TSA, whether they be programs, processes,
or personnel, and having met you a number of times on these
issues I am confident that this will be the case. I am also
hopeful that the Senate gets off their butt at some point and
passes a bill which allows for a 5-year term for a TSA
administrator.
Moreover, I intend to utilize this subcommittee to ensure
robust oversight of TSA's programs and promote policies that
will enhance the security of the traveling public and give them
confidence in the homeland security enterprise. I thank the
administration for appearing before the subcommittee today, as
well as our second panel, and I look forward to hearing the
testimony of all of you.
[The statement of Chairman Katko follows:]
Statement of Chairman John Katko
April 12, 2018
The Committee on Homeland Security Subcommittee on Transportation
and Protective Security will come to order.
The subcommittee is meeting today to examine TSA's fiscal year 2019
budget request. I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
The Transportation Security Administration remains one of the most
crucial components to securing the homeland against new and evolving
threats to the traveling public and our way of life. That is why it is
incumbent upon this subcommittee to take a serious look at the recently
submitted fiscal year 2019 budget request to Congress, by which we are
provided the opportunity to understand this administration's priorities
as they relate to transportation security.
This year's budget request stands at $7.7 billion for fiscal year
2019, which is a $143.8 million increase from last year's request and
approximately $500 million higher than currently enacted funding
levels.
I believe that this budget supports TSA's central mission of
protecting the Nation's transportation systems, and I am pleased to see
the administration better allocating resources based on risks and
current threats than prior years.
Under the leadership of Administrator Pekoske, it has become clear
that TSA is moving in the right direction by working to raise aviation
security standards around the world and recognizing that we are only as
secure as our weakest link.
At a time when threats to aviation remain troublingly persistent, I
am pleased to see Administrator Pekoske taking necessary steps to
improve TSA programs, processes, and technologies. However, I do have a
number of concerns with some of the proposed budgetary numbers in this
year's request. For instance, the request for funding to procure 145
Computed Tomography systems seems woefully short of what is needed to
adequately deploy this advanced technology to airport checkpoints.
While I am pleased that recently enacted appropriations for fiscal year
2018 provided additional resources for CT deployment, I intend to
continue pressing this issue for fiscal year 2019.
Additionally, continuing on the theme from last year's budget
request, the administration is proposing further cuts to its Law
Enforcement Officer Reimbursement Program. This program provides
critical funding to State and Local law enforcement entities charged
with ensuring the safety and security of America's airports, including
TSA personnel.
At a time when public area security remains a top concern, I find
this proposal to be insufficient. Last, TSA's proposed cuts to its
Surface Transportation Security Program come just after the December
2017 attempted suicide attack at New York City's Port Authority Bus
Terminal, where bus and mass transit commuters were targeted.
While I agree that TSA has consistently been unable to demonstrate
the security effectiveness of the agency's VIPR teams or Surface
Inspectors, I believe the agency should work to ensure sufficient
resources and support for surface transportation in other ways.
Simply put, combining these cuts with additional cuts to the
Transit Security Grant Program elsewhere in the Department of Homeland
Security's budget request seems out of step with the vulnerability of
surface transportation systems. That is why the House recently passed a
number of committee bills aimed at ensuring TSA prioritizes surface
transportation.
Despite these challenges, I believe that, in general, TSA is making
strides to improve risk-based security and is better-reflecting risk in
the budget than in prior years.
I hope that TSA will continue working to be even more responsive to
changing threats, and that Administrator Pekoske will continue to set a
tone that encourages regular engagement with stakeholders and empowers
front-line personnel.
Administrator Pekoske, you have a lot of work cut out for you, and
I hope you will use your position to root out problems at TSA--whether
they be programs, processes, or personnel. Having met a number of times
on these issues, I am confident that this will be the case.
Moreover, I intend to utilize this subcommittee to ensure robust
oversight of TSA's programs and promote policies that will enhance the
security of the traveling public and give them confidence in the
Homeland Security Enterprise.
I thank the administrator for appearing before the subcommittee
today, as well as our second panel, and I look forward to hearing the
testimony.
I am pleased to recognize the Ranking Member of the subcommittee,
the gentlelady from New Jersey, Mrs. Watson Coleman, for her opening
statement.
Mr. Katko. I am pleased to recognize the Ranking Member of
the subcommittee, the gentlelady from New Jersey, my friend,
Mrs. Watson Coleman, for her opening statement.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask
unanimous consent for the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Val
Demings, to be seated on this panel and allow to question the
witness.
Mr. Katko. Without objection.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
holding this hearing, and thank you also to the administrator
for joining us today.
Everyone here today is well aware of the serious nature of
the terrorist threat facing our transportation systems. Time
and time again, we are provided chilling evidence of
terrorists' intent to inflict harm against innocent Americans
by attacking planes, subways, or buses. Each time we ask
ourselves and our expert witnesses, what more can we be doing
to protect against such ruthless attacks? Over and over, we are
told, ``It is simply a matter of resources. We have great ideas
and great security measures. We just need more funding to
deploy more officers, more canines, more technology.''
That is why it is so disappointing that this
administration's TSA budget proposal eliminates, cuts or short-
changes critical security programs. I have made repeated calls
for increased security for surface transportation systems. The
threat is clear, as we have seen mostly in overseas attacks.
But last December, the threat hit home when an attacker
detonated a bomb within the New York City subway system.
So how does the President's budget address this growing
dangerous threat? It proposes building a border wall, paid for
by gutting the few programs aimed at securing surface
transportation. Specifically, the President's proposed budget
calls for eliminating TSA's VIPR program and cutting by nearly
two-thirds of the Transit Security Grant Program which provides
security funding to transit owners and operators.
Let me give you another example of where the President's
budget inexplicably short-changes security. Repeatedly, we have
seen attacks occurring within public airport areas, from
Brussels to Los Angeles and Paris to New Orleans, Istanbul to
Fort Lauderdale. Airports are crowded, open, critical spaces
and attacks can result in significant loss of life. So how does
the President's budget address this threat? It proposes
building a border wall, paid for by eliminating the law
enforcement officer reimbursement program, which assists local
law enforcement and providing police coverage to airports and
TSA checkpoints, and by shifting TSA's duty to secure exit
lanes to airports and local jurisdictions.
Finally, when it comes to the TSA workforce, the
President's budget proposal is just off-base. TSA officers are
overworked and underpaid. In 2017, TSA employees ranked 336th
out of 339 Government agencies in overall morale and dead last
in satisfaction with their pay. TSA operates its own personnel
and pay system and does not afford its employees the same
regular salary increase and disciplinary rights enjoyed by most
other Federal workers. That is just not fair.
As a result, TSA deals with high attrition rates and
insufficient staffing levels. In response to these programs,
the President's budget proposes--you guessed it--building a
border wall rather than investing in the dedicated TSA work
force and providing them the rights they deserve.
Somehow these examples are just a small sampling of
problems with the budget proposal, which also fails to invest
adequately in computed tomography, or CT, machines, does not
increase funding for highly effective canine teams, and
proposes increasing passenger security fees, despite the on-
going diversion of much of those fees from TSA's
appropriations.
This budget proposal is a result of a President choosing to
prioritize his misguided campaign promise to build an $18
billion border wall over urgent National security needs. Since
he said Mexico was going to pay for this wall, we shouldn't
even be having this discussion. It is unacceptable and Congress
must reject it.
I am encouraged that the recently passed omnibus
prioritizes some of our most pressing transportation security
needs, providing $43 million in funding for 31 VIPR teams, $45
million for the LEO reimbursement programs, and $77 million to
continue securing exit lanes. That this omnibus presents such a
sharp contrast to the proposed budget we are discussing today
should raise some red flags. I hope that this hearing will help
shed light on the devastating effects this budget would have if
it were enacted.
Again, I want to thank my Chairman and our witnesses and I
yield back the balance of my time.
[The statement of Ranking Member Watson Coleman follows:]
Statement of Ranking Member Bonnie Watson Coleman
April 12, 2018
Everyone here today is well aware of the serious nature of the
terrorist threat facing our transportation systems.
Time and time again, we are provided chilling evidence of
terrorists' intent to inflict harm against innocent Americans by
attacking planes, subways, or buses.
Each time, we ask ourselves and our expert witnesses: What more can
we be doing to protect against such ruthless attacks?
And over and over, we are told: ``It is simply a matter of
resources.''
``We have great ideas and great security measures; we just need
more funding to deploy more officers, more canines, more technology.''
That is why it is so disappointing that this administration's TSA
budget proposal eliminates, cuts, or shortchanges critical security
programs.
I have made repeated calls for increased security for surface
transportation systems.
The threat is clear, as we have seen mostly in overseas attacks.
Last December, the threat hit home when an attacker detonated a
bomb within the New York City subway system.
So how does the President's budget address this growing, dangerous
threat?
It proposes building a border wall, paid for by gutting the few
programs aimed at securing surface transportation.
Specifically, the President's proposed budget calls for eliminating
TSA's Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response or ``VIPR'' program
and cutting by nearly two-thirds of the Transit Security Grant Program
which provides security funding to transit owners and operators.
Let me give you another example of where the President's budget
inexplicably shortchanges security.
Repeatedly, we have seen attacks occurring within public airport
areas, from Brussels to Los Angeles, Paris to New Orleans, Istanbul to
Ft. Lauderdale.
Airports are crowded, open, critical spaces, and attacks can result
in significant loss of life.
So how does the President's budget address this threat?
It proposes building a border wall, paid for by eliminating the Law
Enforcement Officer Reimbursement Program which assists local law
enforcement in providing police coverage to airports and TSA
checkpoints, and by shifting TSA's duty to secure exit lanes to
airports and local jurisdictions.
Finally, when it comes to the TSA workforce, the President's budget
proposal is just as off-base.
TSA officers are overworked and underpaid.
In 2017, TSA employees ranked 336th out of 339 Government agencies
in overall morale, and dead last in satisfaction with their pay.
TSA operates its own personnel and pay system and does not afford
its employees the same regular salary increases and disciplinary rights
enjoyed by most other Federal workers.
As a result, TSA deals with high attrition rates and insufficient
staffing levels.
In response to these problems, the President's budget proposes--you
guessed it--building a border wall rather than investing in the
dedicated TSA workforce and providing them the rights they deserve.
Somehow, these examples are just a small sampling of problems with
the budget proposal, which also fails to invest adequately in Computed
Tomography or ``CT'' machines, does not increase funding for highly
effective canine teams, and proposes increasing passenger security fees
despite the on-going diversion of much of those fees from TSA's
appropriations.
This budget proposal is the result of a President choosing to
prioritize his misguided campaign promise to build an $18 billion
border wall over urgent National security needs.
It is unacceptable, and Congress must reject it.
I am encouraged that the recently passed omnibus prioritizes some
of our most pressing transportation security needs, providing $43
million in funding for 31 VIPR teams, $45 million for the LEO
Reimbursement Program, and $77 million to continue securing exit lanes.
That this omnibus presents such a sharp contrast to the proposed
budget we are discussing today should raise some red flags.
I hope this hearing today will help shed light on the devastating
effects this budget would have if it were enacted.
Mr. Katko. Thank you, Mrs. Watson Coleman. Other Members of
the subcommittee are reminded that opening statements may be
submitted for the record.
We are pleased to have two distinguished panels of
witnesses before us today. Let me remind the witnesses that
their entire written statements will appear verbatim in the
record. In our first panel, we are pleased to have Admiral
David Pekoske, the seventh TSA administrator--at least six that
I have had as part of my time here as Chair in 3\1/2\ years,
which is crazy--and hopefully you are going to be here for a
while--and you are here to testify before us today on this
critical topic.
In his role as administrator, Mr. Pekoske is responsible
for securing the Nation's civil aviation system and surface
transportation modes. He leads a work force of approximately
60,000 employees who work to protect the Nation's
transportation systems while ensuring freedom of movement for
people and commerce.
Prior to joining TSA, Mr. Pekoske served as the 26th vice
commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard. Sir, thank you for your
service to our country and for continuing your service to your
country in this current role. You are now recognized for 5
minutes for an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF DAVID P. PEKOSKE, ADMINISTRATOR, TRANSPORTATION
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Pekoske. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Watson Coleman, Members of this subcommittee. I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you this afternoon and for the
opportunity to have a discussion and answer your questions with
respect to TSA's budget and TSA's overall operations.
The President's fiscal 2019 budget reflects our highest
priority funding needs in performing the critical mission of
protecting our transportation system. I will briefly highlight
some of the elements of that budget request in a moment.
But before I touch on the budget, I would like to express
my appreciation for this committee for ensuring that TSA has
the necessary authorities needed to secure the world's most
complex and valuable transportation system. As you know, I have
exercised the security directive and emergency amendment
authorities provided in ATSA several times in my 8 months as
the administrator. I exercised those authorities to meet a
current threat, and my policy is always to consult with
industry in advance of issuing security directives or emergency
amendments. I appreciate the excellent collaboration that
exists between the industry and TSA.
But it is important, in my view, to obtain the broad
authorities granted in law to ensure that we can quickly act
and decisively act when needed, and I appreciate this
committee's support in this regard. I appreciate your work in
passing a reauthorization bill for TSA through the House, and
consistent with your priorities, I am focused on the insider
threat in our aviation system and have asked our aviation
security advisory committee to undertake another review of this
issue.
Your support of the Rap Back process has already improved
security at our airports. We have launched a third-party canine
cargo program recently to facilitate the use of canines in
cargo security. Our third industry day is next week down at our
canine training center in San Antonio, and I would say that the
collaboration with industry on this topic has been excellent.
We have a new strategy for TSA that focuses on improving
security, accelerating our decision-making and technology
deployment processes, and firmly committing to the deployment
and support--development and support, rather, of our work
force, all priorities this committee has long advocated.
Additionally, I appreciate the oversight this committee
provides TSA and I hope you have found me and my team highly
responsive to your request for information since our January
hearing.
I would like to at this point highlight a few items in the
President's budget request. First, the budget begins full-scale
deployment funding for the administration's and this
committee's top priority, as the Chairman already mentioned,
the computed tomography X-ray equipment at domestic airport
checkpoints. This program is on track. We have five
participating vendors. Of the five, two are small businesses.
The next phase of this project is developmental and
operational testing. Our vendors are manufacturing the test
systems now, and we expect to have approximately 35 systems
either deployed at our test labs, in our training centers, or
at airports over the course of this summer. If all the testing
goes well, full-scale implementation will begin early in
calendar year 2019.
The President's budget provides $72 million for 145 units
in fiscal 2019, and I am committed to successfully fielding
this technology as quickly as I can. The budget also provides
$7 million to fund nearly 300 credential authentication
technology units. These units improve the travel document
checker function at our security checkpoint. That function is
the first person that a passenger meets when they come in
through the TSA area of a checkpoint.
Forty-two of these units are now being tested in select
PreCheck lanes in 13 airports across the country, and that
testing is going very well. In total, approximately 1,500 of
these units are needed. With fiscal year 2019 funding, we will
have over 300 of the 1,500 to be fielded, or approximately 20
percent. Both CT, the computed tomography X-ray equipment, and
the credential authentication technology are key essential
parts of our security checkpoint, and I appreciate the
committee's full support of these mission-critical systems.
On surface transportation, the budget sustains our level of
effort with the exception of the elimination of the VIPR teams,
and I appreciate, as you know, in my prior testimony and in my
individual conversations with Members of this committee, I
appreciate the hard work and the value that the VIPR teams have
brought to both aviation and surface transportation security.
The budget reflects a need simply to prioritize funding within
a constrained budget and acknowledge the capability that
already exists at the State and local levels. We will continue
to work closely with surface transportation system owners and
operators in sharing intelligence information, developing
guidelines, sharing best practices, providing canine
capability, and our close work with them on exercises,
training, and security summits.
Long-term capital and technology planning is important to
sustaining progress in deploying this technology to the hands
of the users. We have developed a capital investment plan for
TSA to guide our next year, our fiscal 2020 budget submission
now before the Department of Homeland Security. This will
provide us the ability to provide a longer-term and strategic
look at our capital investment requirements for TSA.
This technology is great, and it is urgently needed, but is
only useful in the hands of the outstanding men and women--some
60,000 strong--who are TSA. Their role in providing a secure
transportation system cannot be overstated. Through dedication
and hard work, we have maintained a secure transportation
system, we have raised the bar on global aviation security. We
screen roughly 2 million passengers through our domestic
airports every single day, ensure compliance with our
regulations, and introduce new leading-edge security into the
checkpoint.
TSA's work force is at the core of our new strategy, and I
am keenly focused on increasing job satisfaction, morale,
improving communications, and soliciting their ideas for a
better TSA, as well as providing professional leadership
development to our work force.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to make an
opening statement, and I look forward to your questions, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pekoske follows:]
Prepared Statement of David P. Pekoske
March 14, 2018
Good morning Chairman Katko, Ranking Member Watson Coleman, and
distinguished Members of the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me
here today to testify on the President's fiscal year 2019 budget, which
includes a request of $7.7 billion for the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA).
I am grateful for the longstanding and constructive relationship
that TSA enjoys with this subcommittee. This budget supports our
highest priority funding needs and allows TSA to continue its critical
mission of protecting America's transportation systems.
TSA was created in the wake of the September 11 attacks and charged
with the mission of preventing another large-scale act of terrorism on
the American transportation system. Many things have changed since that
fateful day, but our fundamental mission has not. Our Nation relies on
the professionals at TSA, and across the transportation community, to
protect passengers and commerce traveling to and within the United
States.
Across the country, TSA screens more than 2 million passengers
every day. Since September 11, 2001, there have been no successful
attacks on the U.S. aviation system. Our motto, ``not on my watch,''
speaks to our commitment to defeat terrorist attempts to attack our
transportation systems.
Every day we are reminded anew that we face ambitious adversaries
who are watching us, studying our vulnerabilities, and working hard to
develop new attack strategies to replace those that have failed. To
stay ahead of them, we have to innovate, we have to deploy new
solutions rapidly and effectively, and we have to make the most of our
resources. Since 9/11, we have taken bold and unprecedented steps to
ensure the security of aviation. Aviation and transportation hubs
remain highly-valued targets for terrorists, and terrorist modes and
methods of attack are much more decentralized and opportunistic than
ever before.
Since my swearing in, I have made it a priority to meet with
members of the TSA workforce, industry, and stakeholders. These
discussions reinforce that our transportation systems fundamentally
underpin our economy and that as technology is changing the way the
world operates it is also changing the way our adversaries operate.
Securing this environment requires a proactive and agile agency with a
professional workforce that coordinates closely with key partners in
Government and industry domestically and around the world.
As I traveled across the transportation system, I met thousands of
people who are deeply committed to the security of the system. These
encounters strengthened my belief that security is a communal effort
and that our greatest assets are--and will always be--our people, our
partners, and the traveling public. These experiences have also led me
to conclude that TSA must move faster if it is to meet the demands of
the future. Faster to minimize vulnerabilities, faster to test new
technology, and faster to procure and deploy new technology. In short,
we need to be more agile.
That is why I have set out in the new TSA Strategy, three key
priorities: Improve security and safeguard the transportation system,
accelerate action, and commit to our people. These priorities reflect
my focus on preserving front-line operations, quickly transitioning to
new technologies, and creating efficiencies to optimize limited
resources.
We believe strongly that innovation is central to our continued
success. This firm belief inspired the creation of the TSA Innovation
Task Force in 2016. This task force is collaborating with industry,
airlines, and airport authorities to find and deploy the very best
ideas for increasing security while reducing friction for the traveler.
For example, with your help, we will drive as hard and fast as we
can to rapidly deploy Computed Tomography (CT) systems to high-risk
domestic airports in 2019. Our confidence in the security impact of
these solutions has led us to request $71.5 million to purchase and
deploy CT systems in fiscal year 2019. Research and development efforts
have shown that CT is the most consequential technology available today
for airport checkpoints, as it automates much of the threat detection
function. We have devoted significant resources into testing this
technology during this current fiscal year, and pending results, we
anticipate operational tests will be conducted at up to eight airports
in the coming months.
The fiscal year 2019 budget request includes $71.5 million for CT
technology, which will allow us to begin purchasing and deploying CT
technology to airport checkpoints. This will allow for the purchase of
at least 145 CT units and an additional $2.4 million for 19 new full-
time Transportation Security Specialists-Explosives to help respond to
the increased alarm rates that we expect as we roll out the new
technology. With the funding requested in the fiscal year 2019
President's budget, we also plan to procure and deploy 294 credential
authentication technology (CAT) units at a number of airports. CT and
CAT are cornerstone technologies to transform security at the
checkpoint.
TSA has extraordinarily dedicated employees--people of high
integrity, who have great respect for and commitment to our mission and
to one another. Both the administration and I share a continued
commitment to invest in and strengthen this workforce. Therefore, the
fiscal year 2019 budget request includes funding for 43,877 full-time
Transportation Security Officers. This request will increase TSA's
workforce by 687 full-time Officers, which begins to address our front-
line shortfall in the face of increased passenger volume and evolving
threats to aviation.
To make the most of these budgetary priorities, we are asking
industry and our stakeholders to partner with us to develop and deploy
new technology. We are asking our employees to recommit to our core
values of integrity, respect, and commitment, to be leaders regardless
of their titles or level in the agency, and to be ambassadors for TSA.
We ask members of the public to see themselves as part of the solution
and to remember that the Officers at the checkpoint are doing their job
to keep Americans safe. Finally, we ask you, the Members of this
subcommittee, for your continued partnership, insight, and support.
Securing our Nation's transportation system is a complex task and
we cannot do it alone. Since our inception, TSA has lived by the motto
``not on my watch.'' This has served as a powerful call to action for
the TSA workforce. I hope to encourage an even stronger relationship
between those outside TSA and those within by acknowledging our shared
security mission. Together we will adopt and embrace a new creed: ``Not
on Our Watch.''
Chairman Katko, Ranking Member Watson Coleman, and Members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you
today. I look forward to your questions.
Mr. Katko. Thank you, Mr. Pekoske. I want to recognize the
Chairman of the--Ranking Member, rather, of the Homeland
Security Committee, Mr. Thompson. I don't believe he has a
statement, but do you want to enter something in the record,
sir?
Mr. Thompson. Yes, I do. Thank you very much. I have a
written statement that I would like to enter into the record. I
will have some questions of the administrator at that time.
Mr. Katko. Without objection. Thank you.
[The statement of Ranking Member Thompson follows:]
Statement of Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson
April 12, 2018
Effectively executing TSA's mission to secure the Nation's
transportation systems is essential to homeland security.
Even though the threat environment is constantly evolving, the
Trump administration's budget request for fiscal year 2019 is woefully
inadequate to the point of undermining TSA's ability to carry out its
mission on behalf of the American people.
First, it fails to build efforts to address morale challenges
within TSA's front-line security workforce. While a slight improvement
upon last year, TSA still ranks 336 out of 339 agency subcomponents in
best places to work.
I think we can both agree that TSA must do better.
Unlike employees at most Federal agencies, TSA officers do not
receive regularly-scheduled salary increases, though, Mr.
Administrator, you have the authority to grant such increases.
Year after year, TSA has failed to prioritize requesting
significant funding for salary increases or longevity pay, leading to
unacceptable attrition rates.
I was greatly disappointed to see that the administration's request
does not significantly raise pay for the hard-working men and women of
TSA.
To make matters worse, TSOs are still denied the same rights that
FAA and other Federal employees are granted, and still lack access to a
fair disciplinary appeals process.
I was also troubled to see that this administration is seeking to
eliminate the VIPR program. This program is arguably TSA's most visible
and mobile resource for surface transportation security.
Its elimination would worsen the effects of drastic cuts to the
Transit Security Grant Program envisioned in President Trump's budget
proposal.
We simply must provide more resources to secure surface
transportation given recent attacks and current threats.
This budget also eliminates the Law Enforcement Officer (LEO)
Reimbursement program, which supports placing uniformed officers near
screening checkpoints in over 300 airports, and it shirks TSA's
responsibility to protect exit lanes.
With little to no consultation, the administration's proposal seeks
to shift this burden onto local jurisdictions and airports that are not
likely to have resources necessary to maintain a law enforcement
presence in public areas of transportation systems.
I was, however, pleased to see that the recently-passed omnibus for
the remainder of fiscal year 2018 included funding to maintain 31 VIPR
teams and the LEO reimbursement program, and to support exit lane
screening.
The funding of these essential transportation security programs in
the omnibus go even further to show how unrealistic this proposed
budget is.
Given the steady increase in threats against our transportation
systems, the administration should be bolstering Federal support for
such programs, not eliminating them.
Instead, President Trump wants to increase the diversion of a large
segment of fees collected for aviation security to his proposed $18
billion border wall slush fund.
On an annual basis, over a billion dollars is diverted from TSA
security operations to the General Fund.
I know that you are aware this has been a long-standing concern,
not only for me but for many of my colleagues in Congress.
These fees need to be spent how the American people expect them to
be spent--to secure transportation systems.
Mr. Katko. Thank you again, Admiral Pekoske. I keep calling
you Mr. Pekoske. You should be admiral, I believe. We
appreciate you being here today, and I now recognize myself for
5 minutes of questions.
To no one's surprise, I am going to ask you some questions
about PreCheck and about the procurement process with respect
to the CT machines, which is the next-generation scanning. The
budget does allocate some funding for that, and it is certainly
an increase over past years. I remain concerned about the lack
of speed with which some of these systems are being
implemented, particularly given the fact that these very
machines, Mrs. Watson Coleman, myself, and many others saw with
their own eyes, on the front lines already being implemented in
Europe.
So if you could just talk for a second about the level of
application of the machines that will go on-line this year, if
any. I know there is going to be testing. If there is not going
to be any going on-line this year, when they are going to be
going on-line and to what extent they are going to be going on-
line, and what else we can do to help you with that.
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, sir. This year, in fiscal 2018, so
between now and the end of the September of this year, we will
have 36 systems deployed. The majority of them will be deployed
at airports. The purpose of that deployment is to operationally
test the machines, to make sure that they can operate as they
are designed. It also gives us an opportunity to train our work
force in this new technology.
I would expect that if that testing goes well--and based on
everything that I know today, I expect it to--that we will have
operational use of those machines once that testing is
complete. So we will already have 35 machines installed based
on fiscal 2018 funding. Then, as you know, sir, we have a
fiscal 2019 request that will fund 145 more machines.
What I would also add to that, Mr. Chairman, is that I am
moving as fast as I can, irrespective of what the budget levels
are. My commitment to you, my commitment to the administration
is to deploy this technology as quickly as we can. So the
budget number doesn't meter the speed at which we are
attempting to deploy this technology. We are working very hard
to do that.
I have met personally with all but one of the five vendors
that have expressed an interest in supporting us in this way,
and I meet with that last vendor tomorrow to basically express
my concern that we do this rapidly in a smart way, and also to
proactively seek their input on ways from their perspective
that we could do this better and deploy it better.
Mr. Katko. OK. I appreciate that. But a question I have is,
this technology is already being used on the front lines. One
of the things we have pushed in the past and in separate
legislation, I believe, is to have third-party testing become
more of a tool for the TSA and the TSA industries that provide
the technologies.
We already know that these things are being used in Europe.
We already know that they are being successfully implemented in
Europe. So why--out of curiosity, why would we have to go
through all this extra testing? Is that just--are these
internal rules at TSA? Or what is it that you have to test that
has not already been tested on the front lines?
Mr. Pekoske. Well, sir, we have been in very close contact
with folks at Schiphol Airport, at London Heathrow Airport,
where they are testing these machines now. We exchange data
back and forth with both of those airports so that we can
together learn how to best apply these systems and where we can
further develop the technology with software improvements.
With respect to third-party testing, I am a huge advocate
of covert testing, red team testing, to make sure that the
system, when you don't expect to be tested, is actually working
as advertised. So we will continue to do that. In fact, one of
the things that I am looking to do inside TSA is to expand that
testing element, because it has provided us such valuable
insight. It allows us to change our processes and to look for
new technology solutions.
Mr. Katko. Thank you. As you know, we have said this in the
past and it bears out repeating now, the bad guys are making
advances at a much faster pace than we are getting our
technologies to the front lines. So I implore you and everyone
at TSA to work as quickly and as fast as you can with your
respective vendors to get this stuff done.
We are also going to introduce a bill that helps you expand
the TSIF's capability, so these things can get through the
process quicker. That is very, very important to us.
Briefly, I want to just reiterate my concern about
PreCheck. I don't know what, if there is any provisions in the
budget to address this concern, but PreCheck should be for
PreCheck. Mr. Thompson I know has expressed concerns about this
in the past, as has Mrs. Watson Coleman, myself, and Chairman
McCaul and others, that when someone goes through a PreCheck
line under any circumstance that is not being fully vetted and
is not part of the PreCheck program, that is a mistake, that is
a security gap, and that shouldn't happen.
I would venture to guess that is part of the reason why
PreCheck isn't expanding at the rate upon which we want it to.
So just briefly, can you tell me, is there any provisions in
this budget to address those concerns?
Mr. Pekoske. Sir, there are no provisions in the budget,
but I really don't need a budget provision to address the
concerns that you have expressed. In fact, we are already
moving in that direction, and we will gradually get to the
point in the not-too-distant future where only people with
PreCheck on their boarding pass are in PreCheck lanes.
Then there is an additional step to ensure that only
PreCheck registrants are in PreCheck lanes. So I would be happy
to get you a time line for how we intend to advance that, but
it will be aggressive.
Mr. Katko. I would like to see that time line, and I
appreciate that. Again, just because they say PreCheck on the
boarding pass doesn't mean they are in the PreCheck program. So
we want that stopped, as well.
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, sir.
Mr. Katko. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Thompson
for 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good to see you again,
Mr. Administrator. Are you in support of this budget you are
here defending?
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, sir, I support the President's request.
Mr. Thompson. OK. So you support getting rid of the VIPR
teams?
Mr. Pekoske. Sir, within the available funding for TSA, we
had to make some very difficult tradeoffs. I am a strong
supporter of the VIPR teams, but we just can't afford to
continue to provide that level of support, additionally knowing
that State and local governments also have capabilities similar
to what the VIPR teams provide. But that in no way diminishes,
in my view, the value of the VIPR teams or the work that they
have performed.
Mr. Thompson. So are--you support them or you want to get
rid of them?
Mr. Pekoske. I am supportive of the President's request
that necessarily based on funding limitations we would
eliminate the VIPR teams and turn that responsibility with that
capability gap to State and local governments, sir.
Mr. Thompson. So do you support workers having the same--
your workers having the same rights as other fellow employees?
Mr. Pekoske. Sir, the rights TSA workers having within the
Aviation Transportation Security Act are substantial. I think
that if you looked at my actions since I have been the
administrator, I have done a lot of things to ensure that our
workers' rights are well-protected and well-considered.
I am constantly looking at ways that we can improve job
satisfaction and morale within TSA. I think we have made some
good progress in that regard.
Mr. Thompson. So if I said TSA officers don't receive
regular scheduled salary increases, would I be correct?
Mr. Pekoske. Not entirely, sir. The Aviation Transportation
Security Act allows me to pay at any time that I want to pay at
what level that I want to pay. The issue really is how much
money do you have within your budget to be able to pay your
work force?
Mr. Thompson. So do you do it? Or you don't do it?
Mr. Pekoske. We do, do it, yes, sir. We give our workers a
pay raise every year. Unlike the general schedule, which has
longevity increases over a set period of time, I have the
authority within TSA to provide longevity increases every year
if I choose to do that.
The issue is not the authority to do it. It is the ability
with respect to funding to pay workers.
Mr. Thompson. So do you do longevity pay?
Mr. Pekoske. We don't do longevity pay. We do annual pay
increases.
Mr. Thompson. So the record will reflect that annual
increases are the standard procedure?
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, sir, for high-performing employees. Not
all employees get--the vast majority do, but not all employees
do, because we have a pay-for-performance system.
Mr. Thompson. Well, if you would provide in writing, I
think, to the committee how employees receive regular scheduled
pay increases----
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, sir, will do.
Mr. Thompson. So do employees have access to fair
disciplinary appeal process?
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, sir, they do. There is a grievance
process within TSA. It is the National Resolution Center. That
process in my view is working very well. In fact, we just
compared National Resolution Center processes to the Merit
Systems Protection Board in terms of the end results of whether
they accepted a grievance or not. Our comparison is on par with
in general for a large population, on par with what the MSPB
does.
Additionally, the NRC, an internal grievance process within
TSA, processes those applications quite a bit faster.
Mr. Thompson. So if people get fair hearings, if they are
getting increases, if they are getting longevity pay, why is
morale so bad among your agency?
Mr. Pekoske. Well, because the overall level, sir--they get
the annual increases, but the annual increases may not be at
the same level in terms of absolute dollar or a percentage of
pay that they might get in a different system. That is not an
authorities issue; it is a dollars issue.
Mr. Thompson. Do you have the authority to fix it?
Mr. Pekoske. I have the authority to pay it if I had the
money to pay.
Mr. Thompson. So you support the President's budget, but
you don't have the money to pay your employees.
Mr. Pekoske. That is right. Because within the President's
budget, sir, I have a certain amount of money, $7.7 billion,
for operations.
Mr. Thompson. So you do understand----
Mr. Pekoske. I do.
Mr. Thompson [continuing]. That has a direct correlation to
morale.
Mr. Pekoske. I do, sir. In fact, I think the key driver for
the morale numbers that the Ranking Member cited in her opening
statement are due to pay. But that pay is at the lower pay
bands, because we have a banded system for pay. That pay is
most acute at the lower pay bands.
Mr. Thompson. You support the pay band?
Mr. Pekoske. I do.
Mr. Thompson. Rather than paying your Government employees
like we pay all other Government employees?
Mr. Pekoske. Well, sir, in my mind, they are two different
things. The pay bands, as a way to manage a pay for performance
system, that provides security is a very good way to do it.
Whether or not you have the money to pay all that you would
desire to pay is an entirely different question.
Mr. Thompson. Why would you want a system of paying your
employees different from all other fellow employees?
Mr. Pekoske. Because I would like to recognize performance.
If somebody performs well, I would like to be able to quickly
recognize that performance with pay.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Katko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Chair now
recognizes the Ranking Member, Mrs. Watson Coleman, for 5
minutes of questions.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good day to
you, Mr. Administrator. I have to tell you that I am a little
disturbed here about some of what I think are--is an about-face
on what is important and what represents security at our
airports and other places.
You said in your opening statement this budget supports our
highest priority funding needs and allows TSA to continue its
critical mission of protecting America's transportation system,
yet when we review the budget, we see that there is a decrease
in local and law enforcement support, there is an elimination
of VIPR, which is something that up until this point you had
indicated was a very important component to security either at
airports or at surface transportation facilities. It diminishes
significantly surface grants, sometimes the only grants that
are available to transportation systems, land transportation
systems. It increases the fees, but there is no guarantee that
TSA is going to get more of that money. There is no increase in
salaries and a modest increase in the number of positions and
inadequate funding of the CTs based upon prior conversations,
Mr. Administrator.
So are you suggesting that the border is more important
than these issues, these security measures, that we supported
for purposes of securing people flying, riding, walking,
whatever? I am just really confused here.
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, ma'am. Well, I would suggest all are very
important. We don't have unlimited funds in the Federal
Government. We have to make some very difficult choices.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. So do you think that diversion of the
money to build a border wall is more important than putting
adequate money in these 7 or 8 or 9 or 10 items that are
woefully either underrepresented in this budget or eliminated
entirely, sir?
Mr. Pekoske. Well, my job is to advocate strongly for the
Transportation Security Administration budget. I do that in the
process. Then others with a broader portfolio and a broader
view make decisions as to which part of the overall DHS
enterprise get different levels of funding.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. You know, Mr. Administrator, I had a
lot of hope and expectations of your being able to do that. But
today, it concerns me that you are a team member in a team that
I think is taking this country in the wrong direction. It is
kind-of disappointing, actually. So I just need to put that on
the record.
At your last appearance before the subcommittee, you agreed
to provide us with information on political appointees at TSA
who have recused themselves from working on certain issues
under your leadership and during the prior administration. I
thank you for providing that information.
The data provided show that between 2012 and 2017 there
were seven political appointments at TSA with relationships
with 27 organizations that could trigger recusals. In contrast,
in just the year or so since this current President took
office, 9 individuals who collectively could have conflicts
associated with 70 organizations have cycled through TSA to as
political appointees.
Further, since 2015, the number of political appointee
positions at TSA has doubled from--4 to 8? Yes, 4 to 8. So,
sir, let me ask you some--let me say that from what I have seen
on this committee and my work on the Oversight Committee, this
President's policy of hiring lobbyists into the Federal
Government and a penchant for Cabinet Secretaries who have
dubious relationships with ethics and physical responsibility,
as well as representing whether or not they are even eligible
for the positions they hold--present company excepted--
certainly do not reflect a desire to drain the swamp.
As such, I want to ask you: Why did you create new
political positions within TSA, an agency who needs to be
apolitical to protect transportation systems regardless of who
is in the White House? What are the responsibilities of these
political appointees within TSA? How is TSA navigating the
extensive recusal issues associated with so many of these
people in key positions?
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, ma'am. We have 9 political appointees in
TSA, work force of 60,000-plus people. So on a percentage
basis, that is a very, very small percentage. You are right,
ma'am, that there are more political appointees in TSA than
there were a year ago. All of the new adds on the political
appointee side are in my office as counselors to me. I brought
those people in who are all outstanding individuals, brought
them in to advise me and to assist me in the leadership of TSA.
With respect to recusals, I am recused from some aspects of
my job, and those recusals, in my view, serve a very useful
purpose, to make sure that there are no conflicts of interest
and that we are fair and above-board. With the recusals, there
is a very deliberate process to allow decisions to continue to
be made by other officials within the agency for a period of
time.
The final thing I would say, ma'am, is that recusals don't
last forever. My recusal--I can speak for myself--my recusals
last for 2 years. So for 2 years, there is another process that
we put in place that allows decisions on those topics to be
made by somebody else, not me. I am shielded from that
information so that there is no undue influence.
I actually think that is a very good process.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Yield back.
Mr. Katko. Thank you, Mrs. Watson Coleman. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Higgins, for 5
minutes of question.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Admiral Pekoske,
thank you for your service, sir, to our Nation, the Nation that
we love. Thank you for your continued service. Are you a
recipient of the Distinguished Service Medal during your time
in the Coast Guard?
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, sir, I am.
Mr. Higgins. Congratulations, sir, and thank you for your
service. The Legion of Merit?
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, sir.
Mr. Higgins. Congratulations, and thank you for your
service. During your time in the Coast Guard, the teams that
you ran, was the morale high?
Mr. Pekoske. Very high. Yes, sir.
Mr. Higgins. Their service to their country and the Coast
Guard called for incredible training at jobs that had
equivalent jobs in the civilian world. Is that correct?
Mr. Pekoske. That is correct.
Mr. Higgins. Their pay in the Coast Guard, was it
equivalent to their service in the civilian world, in the same
job?
Mr. Pekoske. Not by a long shot.
Mr. Higgins. Was their morale high?
Mr. Pekoske. Morale was high.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you. Let us move on. Much of our focus
today is on issues that the public normally associates with
TSA, such as airport security. But I would like to talk about
pipeline security.
Currently in Louisiana, especially in my district, we are
experiencing a drastic and much welcome increase in private
investment into our energy industry, much of which has
manifested itself in the form of new liquefied natural gas
facilities. These new facilities have led to the construction
and proposed construction of new pipelines in the area,
hundreds and hundreds of miles of pipeline.
Your agency has security responsibilities for the 2.6
million miles of natural gas and oil pipelines in our Nation.
With the current administration's focus on regaining American
energy dominance, this number is likely to grow. These
pipelines are subject to threat. For example, a new pipeline
endeavor in my district called the Bayou Bridge has been met
with large resistance from environmental groups, mostly from
outside of my State. These activists have gone beyond staged
protests and have at times escalated their activities toward
vandalism and attempts to sabotage or delay the project, which
they have. In one instance, as reported by the sheriff's
office, the protestors caused over $50,000 in damage to the
pipeline's construction site.
My question to you is: What is TSA's role in promoting
pipeline security, especially for new projects? How can the
agency better track and respond to evolving threats that may
target pipelines?
Mr. Pekoske. Sir, we have a very critical role in providing
for pipeline security by working very closely with the pipeline
industry in sharing intelligence information with them and
sharing best practices across companies where appropriate.
Additionally, we just published some pipeline security
guidelines, went out last month, that was a collaborative
effort between TSA and the pipeline industry, all the companies
that participate in that industry.
It is an excellent document. I would be happy to provide
you a copy of it, sir. But I find that voluntary guidelines in
this regard actually get us further toward a good security
solution than perhaps regulations would.
Mr. Higgins. What is the level of coordination--and thank
you for your answer, that was very thorough--what is the level
of coordination with local law enforcement to be force
multipliers for pipeline security across the country?
Mr. Pekoske. Sir, whenever we do training exercises, we
always involve local law enforcement, because that is a key
opportunity for all of us to coordinate and to get to know each
other much better.
Mr. Higgins. Does that training take place on a regular
basis?
Mr. Pekoske. It does, sir.
Mr. Higgins. Your current budget, does that impact your
training?
Mr. Pekoske. Our training in the fiscal 2019 budget is the
same as it was in fiscal 2018.
Mr. Higgins. So you can continue the level of training that
has been established?
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, sir.
Mr. Higgins. You find that to be effective?
Mr. Pekoske. I find that to be effective, and I believe the
industry does, as well.
Mr. Higgins. Do you have a spirit within the TSA as the
administrator with your military background, sir, to be able to
do more with less?
Mr. Pekoske. We do.
Mr. Higgins. I appreciate that spirit, and I appreciate
your leadership and your attitude here today. We certainly
recognize that the role of TSA is crucial to the safety of our
Nation and the people that we serve. We also recognize that the
stability of our Nation is dependent upon a fiscal
responsibility that should be borne in this city where it seems
to be a very foreign concept.
So thank you for your considerate responses. I thank you
for your leadership, sir. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of
my time.
Mr. Katko. Thank you, Mr. Higgins. The Chair now recognizes
the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Keating, for 5 minutes of
questioning.
Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Administrator
Pekoske, thank you for your service.
In January before this committee you testified that you
would like 300 CT scanners, CT machines for this year. Is that
correct?
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, sir.
Mr. Keating. So this budget is asking for 145 CT scanners.
So my point in part is this, that indeed, since you requested
it, it is feasible that you could use those and implement
those. So this is purely a budgetary decision, not one of
implementation, not one of constraints otherwise. Is that
correct?
Mr. Pekoske. Sir, I don't feel any constraints with respect
to the budget and how fast I implement the CT acquisition.
Mr. Keating. Well, sir, you said you wanted 300 just last
January. Now you are coming in for 145.
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, sir, but the 145 number or the 300
number, I am still going to move as fast as I can to begin to
implement this system.
Mr. Keating. I am having trouble understanding. You wanted
300. So you assumed you could use them. We know we need them.
But it is 145?
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, sir. So when I made--what may happen is I
may reach a point where I can deploy all 145 earlier in the
fiscal year than I thought, and at that point, we reconsider
the funding level, and I go back and talk within the
administration.
Mr. Keating. So if you could, for this committee and myself
if you could, show us where your initial thought was. If you
can come back and say this is where I thought I was and this is
how I thought I could do 300, and if you could, then say these
are the constraints I have seen where I can only feasibly do
145, and at the same time, I think the testing and the actual
implementation that is being done in other countries, you can't
conceivably think that taking advantage of that testing in
place couldn't expedite the process more?
Could you conceivably--look, let's say there are no
resources that are the problem. Could you conceivably come in
with a program--let's assume there was a disaster, let's assume
there was an attack, let's assume that we find out reviewing it
the CT scanners would have prevented that from occurring, and
you were tasked with saying we have to get these in place
immediately, no constraints, is that possible that you could do
that?
Mr. Pekoske. It is possible. They wouldn't achieve the
level of detection that we desire, but it is possible to do,
sir. With respect to our international partners who are
deploying CT, we have a very robust exchange of information
with them. So as we learn and they learn, we share information
back and forth.
Mr. Keating. Would it indeed be something that you would be
willing to share with the committee, though, how this could
possibly be done, if there were no constraints, or how you
could look beyond the box and say we are doing this? Because I
would assume if we were attacked and this happened, and our
oversight taught us that this could have been prevented, that
we would be acting differently. As a matter of fact, I know we
would be acting differently.
So what I want to do is, you can only deal with what you
have for resources and current constraints. If you could, share
with us what could be done under those circumstances, what you
could think conceivably be done if you were tasked with that.
We know it is a hypothetical. But our job is to look at the
hypotheticals and say, how can we improve things in the future?
This is one area I think that--I think you could a little help
from us on. We can't tell you what to do, but we can give you
the tools to do it. We want to do it.
This is a priority. I can't imagine we would be acting this
way--and if we didn't make the request I just did, and we
didn't pursue this, we would be complicit, I think, as a
committee in not doing our duty to try and make people safe.
So if you could, a couple of other things that have been
mentioned that are important that really, I think, up against
Congress and our history, recent history, will tell us there
are some funding gaps here. The budget has come in eliminating,
you know, the LEO funding and exit lane funding, and we have a
great deal of discrepancies from one airport to another in the
way they function and how secure some of those airports would
be, some are under authorities, municipalities, God knows what.
But you have got cuts there that Congress didn't go along
with, so there is potentially a gap there. There is another
funding gap that is going to occur, too, dealing with an
increase of the tax that is put on passengers. That is being
increased from $5.60 one way to $6.60 one way. You know, that
money--and there are Members of the committee here, Ranking
Member leading this, to try and take that money back that is
there for passenger fees that has been diverted away and put
that right back to airport safety, $1.25 billion. Now, if we
have that money, we wouldn't be having to increase that. If we
are increasing it and the money is being diverted, how do we
know that is going to get into safety in the last analysis, to
funding areas?
My final comment is this. It is one of priorities. It has
been addressed, but I am going to continue to address it. How
many terrorist attacks have come over the Mexican border in the
last 5 years?
Mr. Pekoske. With respect to surface transportation or
aviation----
Mr. Keating. No, just generally. Just general knowledge.
Not under TSA.
Mr. Pekoske. To the best of my knowledge, none.
Mr. Keating. None. That is the correct answer. Yet we have
had airport attacks over the last 5 years. So diverting money
to the border, when money is a constraint and the budget cuts
the local law enforcement, it cuts the exit lane there for
TSA's responsibility, which I think it is TSA's responsibility
to make sure people are honoring these secure areas, where it
is taking away the canines and VIPR teams that are there, that
is where we have had attacks.
Yet that money that we find a multiplier effect perhaps of
25 for a border wall where there has been no attacks, and with
this Congress just recently put $1.6 billion to strengthen our
border security, and it is being potentially used for National
Guardsmen who can't even arm themselves.
So my question to you is, not in your capacity, but
otherwise, does that make any sense to you, as an American
citizen, not as an administrator?
Mr. Pekoske. Sir, my focus is on transportation security.
My job is to advocate as strongly as I can for transportation
security. I have done that. The President's budget provides an
adequate level of funding to provide for continued security in
our transportation system.
I would just note that we have been very successful at that
over time. We have a very robust system in place. The
reductions that you see in the budget are really a reflection
of, hey, does capacity exist somewhere else that perhaps the
Federal Government no longer needs to spend funds to do this?--
and can direct them to projects like the computed tomography.
You know, everything in the budget supports each other. So
if, for example, the VIPR teams remained in the budget or if,
for example, law enforcement officer reimbursement remains in
the budget, I might have a lower number for CT, just because it
is not an--you know, $7.7 billion is my limit with that budget
envelope.
Mr. Keating. Well----
Mr. Katko. Thank you, Mr. Keating.
Mr. Keating [continuing]. My limit is an American fatality,
a person that is injured or a person that is killed in these
kind of attacks. There is enough money to put it elsewhere,
where it does absolutely no good, where we are putting National
Guardsmen at the border that can't even use those arms----
Mr. Katko. Mr. Keating, your time is up.
Mr. Keating. Except in self-defense. I yield back
reluctantly, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Katko. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes
the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Rogers.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Admiral, thank you for
being here and thank you for your service to our country.
Admiral, as administrator of the Transportation Security
Administration, do you have responsibility for securing the
Southwest Border of the United States of America?
Mr. Pekoske. I do not.
Mr. Rogers. As administrator of the Transportation Security
Administration, do you have the authority to secure the
Southwestern Border of the United States if you wanted to do
it?
Mr. Pekoske. No, sir.
Mr. Rogers. So other than your opinion as a private
American citizen that all 350 million of us, or whatever there
are, have, do you think anybody in the leadership of the
Department of Homeland Security cares what your opinion is
about whether or not resources should be put against securing
the Southwestern Border of the United States?
Mr. Pekoske. No, sir. They look for my opinion on
transportation security.
Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir, and that is what we have you here
for, and I appreciate you being here. As you can tell from the
questions and other than that area, this committee remains
focused on CT scans being increased at the checkpoints, as well
as explosive detection canines. Now, you made the statement to
Mr. Keating just now that--and I agree with him--it is hard to
explain that delta between needing 300 and asking for 145--my
guess is OMB told you 145 was the money they had, the money
that you could pursue.
However, you made the statement to him that if at some
point during the year you felt like you could push those 145
out and needed more, you would revisit it. You also made the
statement to the full committee--the subcommittee Chairman, ``I
am moving as fast as I can. The budget number doesn't meter the
pace at which I am moving''.
So my question is, if as you told Mr. Keating, if you get
to a point that you pushed all 145 out, would you be willing to
pursue a reprogramming of monies to allow you to get more out
to move toward that 300 goal?
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, sir, I would. In fact, that has been my
position all along, is I have a certain amount of money, I have
all the money I need to do the testing I need to do to be able
to certify these systems and get them to a point where we want
to have them with respect to detectability to deploy through
the checkpoint.
So the funding that we have in the budget does not meter
that down in one way at all. If we reach the point where--like
I said to Mr. Keating--if we are deploying all 145 units in
April of next year, then, yes, I would go back through the
Secretary and say I am ready and I am capable and I have proven
that I have proven technology that I can integrate into a
checkpoint system and improve security, let's look at some
reprogramming options.
Mr. Rogers. Well, and as you know, Congress would have to
concur with that. But it is obvious from this committee's
behavior and recent hearings that would be approved if there
was a reprogramming request. So it is my hope that you do try
to get beyond that 145 and use that reprogramming avenue.
Similarly, as you might be aware, I am concerned about the
canine number, as well. I have reviewed the President's budget
and frankly was shocked when I--because I know we have had
conversations privately, as well as in the committee, you share
this subcommittee's opinion about the value of explosive
detection canines and the need for a much greater number of
them in our airports.
But then when I see the budget and I see there is $500,000
increase between fiscal year 2018 and fiscal year 2019, that
does not reflect value. I mean, don't get me wrong, $500,000 is
a lot of money to an individual, but in the $7 billion program,
it is not a big number. Why is it so low? Because $500,000 will
not get you a large expanse of the explosive detection canine
program.
Mr. Pekoske. No, sir, what we have done is we have
increased the capacity of our canine training center by 50
canines per year. So that is a fairly substantial increase. The
idea is to position ourselves in the out years to be able to
grow the program. My challenge at this point in time, right
here in April 2018, is getting up to my allocated number.
My allocated number is 379 passenger screening canines. We
aren't there yet. So I am challenged to get to that number this
year. I am not sure I can grow the program substantially in
2019, given some constraints within the training system which
we are examining and trying to get to a point where we can, but
to your main point, sir, is I am a strong supporter, as I know
just about every Member on this committee is, of canine
capability. That is my goal, is to increase that program.
Mr. Rogers. Yes, I recently sent you a letter about some
concerns over third-party canine cargo programs also doing the
testing. Is that a thing I should be concerned about?
Mr. Pekoske. No, sir. In fact, I replied--sent you back a
response yesterday.
Mr. Rogers. Could you tell that committee what that
response said?
Mr. Pekoske. The third-party canine cargo program is a very
valuable program. We have had 2 industry days already. We have
a third one coming up at the canine training center next week.
We have valued greatly the input that the industry has provided
us, and we are committed to ensuring that the program we roll
out provides the right protections, for example, a company that
is certified in canines can't provide canines. Because we want
to make sure that it is completely above-board and that there
is no conflict there.
Additionally, sir, you asked questions about how do we
check as to whether or not they are achieving the level of
performance that we desire, and we have a program in place to
regularly audit those canines, both from a records perspective
and also from an on-scene perspective.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you very much. Again, thank you for your
service to our country.
Mr. Katko. Thank you, Mr. Rogers. The Chair now recognizes
the gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Estes, for 5 minutes of
questioning.
Mr. Estes. So as we look forward to the mission of how do
we continue to process, how do we continue to provide the
services--I know we have talked some about upgrading our
technology--I was fortunate enough to look at some of the last
departure airports in Europe and in the Middle East, and some
of the technology they are using there.
How can we make sure that we are providing the best support
for you, as you are looking at the budget for next year, but
also laying the foundation to be in a short time frame in the
future to help make sure that we are providing that technology
that helps you do the job that we expect you to do?
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, sir, thank you. I would say the committee
has done a fantastic job in supporting TSA since I have been
the administrator. I know I can speak for my predecessor. He
felt exactly the same way.
Where you can continue to help us is as we look at the
processes, I am committed to try to accelerate our process to,
one, make decisions, and then once we make a decision, to
deploy technology successfully. Because I do think it takes us
way too long to do that.
I may need some authorities to be able to move quicker
through a system to be able to put that in place. The other
thing that I am exploring very robustly, sir, is how can we
work in public-private partnerships with industry? We have
already done that pretty successfully with the automated
screening lanes, those new lanes where five people can take
their stuff out of their carry-on bags and put it in bins at
the same time. Those lanes also have some significant security
enhancements.
We will have about 200 of those lanes in place across our
system this year, and that is all funded by the industry. So
what the industry has allowed us to do is to do developmental
and operational testing, training and integration, where they
have paid it and they have gifted the systems to us. So
something like that, a public-private partnership where we
might be able to allow the industry to support some of the
acquisition process.
Then when we get into a point where we say, yes, this is a
system we want to buy, we can just go buy it. That should
shorten the time lines quite a bit.
Mr. Estes. I am glad to hear you are talking about looking
for additional ways to help roll things up, help implement
things. You know, you hear some stories--some are probably
anecdotal, but others probably have real-world basis of how
slow this whole process is, how much the gap is between where
we would like to be and how fast we are getting there. So that
is an opportunity to see, how do we move forward in that? How
do we make sure that we use our budget resources the best way
to make that happen?
One other thing I would--just as a personal note, a
personal comment, is I would like the opportunity at some point
in time to go look at some of the automated lanes. I have
anecdotally observed that process, but trying to understand how
well that improves efficiency and how well that process works.
So that would be interesting to me.
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, sir, we welcome you to any one of our
facilities that has the ASLs. We would be happy to show you the
whole--from a passenger perspective why it is better and,
really, from a security perspective why it is better, and then
how we are integrating--we plan to integrate those lanes, that
technology with the CT X-ray machine.
Mr. Estes. All right. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Katko. Thank you, Mr. Estes. The Chair now recognizes
the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Fitzpatrick, for 5 minutes
of questions.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Pekoske,
thanks for being here. This is really very, very important
stuff we are talking about here, obviously. I think everyone
knows that.
What I would like to do is just to make sure that I am
clear and that this committee is clear on what is needed and
what is being offered and what the gap is and how we get to
filling that gap. So I want to focus first on the CT screening
devices and move to canines.
So the proposed budget offers--correct me if I am wrong--
$73 million for 145 CT screening devices.
Mr. Pekoske. That is correct.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. A full deployment, if we wanted to cover
from top to bottom the airports, 450 or so in this country,
would have required about 2,400. Is that right?
Mr. Pekoske. That is correct.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. At about $600,000 apiece?
Mr. Pekoske. That is correct.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. So we are looking at a total price tag of
about $1.4 billion. As my colleague, Mr. Keating, had mentioned
earlier and it has been discussed, there is about $1.3 billion
currently collected in airline passenger fees that are
earmarked specifically to the general fund for debt reduction.
So that is one place we could go, right, to get this money.
Second is on the canines. There are two types of canines,
right, passenger screening and law enforcement?
Mr. Pekoske. That is right.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Could you describe the difference between
the two of those?
Mr. Pekoske. Well, passenger screening canine is trained to
walk through a series of passengers, detect a vapor, whether it
is an explosive vapor or any other kind of vapor that we
prohibit in the check lane, and then follow that vapor to that
passenger, and then alert on that passenger. Then we have
officers that--behavior detection trained individuals that help
us take care of that passenger's issue as we go forward.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. There is currently about 400 or so
passenger screening, just under----
Mr. Pekoske. We have an allocation for 379, sir, but as I
said to Mr. Rogers, we don't yet have 379 on-board.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. You don't.
Mr. Pekoske. That is the gap we are trying to fill this
year.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Back to the CT scanning devices, are there
five or so, I understand, manufacturers of these devices? It
could take several years to deploy?
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, sir.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. So even if we were able to obtain the
funds, which I think we have to, because I can't think of a
higher priority with all the tens of billions of dollars we
spent in aviation security, this is the most important thing we
can do. But as far as the--not only getting the funding, but
also the deployment, is there a problem on the supply side with
a number of producers of these machines being able to produce
enough for our demand that we have right now?
Mr. Pekoske. Well, the good news, sir, is that we have five
vendors that are in the competition and participating robustly
in the process that we have in place. I don't know how many
vendors are going to be at the end, when we get to the end and
we make a decision that we are going to purchase and certain
vendors are qualified and certified by us to participate in
that program.
So, really, the volume that we can put in place depends on
how many qualified vendors and then to some degree which
vendors those are, because some vendors have more capacity than
others, sir.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. OK, I just want to implore this
committee--I mean, I think we have spent a lot of time talking
about it, but we have got to actually take action, because this
is really, really important stuff. We need these screening
devices in all 450-plus airports across this country. It is got
to be a priority. I yield back.
Mr. Katko. Thank you, Mr. Fitzpatrick. The Chair now
recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida, Ms. Demings, for 5
minutes of questioning.
Mrs. Demings. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you, as well, to the Ranking Member of the full committee and
to the Ranking Member of the subcommittee for allowing me to
participate in this hearing today.
Admiral, it is good to see you again. I want to thank you
for TSA's rapid response to the Orlando International Airport's
request for additional resources and personnel. OIA, like many
other airports, as you know, has experienced unprecedented
growth over the last decade and the work of our FSD, our region
three director, the assistant administrator, as well as the men
and women on the ground, I believe, demonstrates the shared
commitment to passenger safety, National security, and enhanced
customer service.
So on behalf of the Orlando delegation, I want to thank you
for TSA's commitment to our growing airport. But with the
Federal airport partnership in mind, I would like to turn to
reimbursement for airports that took early action to install
inline baggage screening systems but have yet to be reimbursed.
From the start, Congress established that the Federal
Government was responsible for the costs of baggage screening
equipment, and Orlando International Airport, with the support
of the TSA, procured and installed cutting-edge in-line baggage
screening equipment. Unfortunately, more than 12 years later,
airports like OIA have yet to be reimbursed.
In the fiscal year 2019 budget, the DHS budget
justification states that reimbursements like those owed to OIA
are dead last on the list of funding priorities. In February
2018, 14 airports were told funds would not be available until
at least 2027.
To the relief of many, fiscal year 2018 omnibus provided a
$50 million down payment for the $218 million owed to airports
like Orlando. It is my understanding that the agency is to
provide a time line and methodology for the distribution of the
appropriated funds and a plan for the remaining $168 million
owed by the end of this month.
Admiral, is TSA on track to meet the deadline? Will
subsequent budget requests reprioritize those reimbursements?
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, ma'am, thank you very much for your
comments, first off. Second, with respect to the EDS
reimbursement, yes, $50 million in the omnibus appropriation,
and we are ready I think next week or the week after to brief
the committee on how we would propose to disburse those funds.
The sum total is $218 million. If you just took $50 million for
argument's sake and said I pay $50 million a year, when can
this $218 million be paid off? It is between 4 and 5 years.
Mrs. Demings. So between 4 and 5 years, not 2027
necessarily?
Mr. Pekoske. Well, if we continue with the $50 million. But
as you know, ma'am, in the President's budget, there is not a
$50 million request for fiscal 2019.
Mrs. Demings. Admiral, could you talk a little bit about
the--you know, I do believe that our most precious resource are
the men and women on the job. Having commanded a police
department, I understand how, yes, they are willing to do much
more than they are ever paid to do. But a part of morale is
making sure that we try our best to pay them what they are
worth.
Could you just talk a little bit about the men and women on
the ground at the TSA who do the job every day, the front line
in terms of our security, and talk a little bit more about some
of the direct efforts that you are engaged in directly to
understand what is going on with them and to help increase
morale, or create an environment that increases their morale?
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, thank you, ma'am. Thank you for the
question. You know, as I said in my opening statement, we have
a fantastic work force in TSA, 60,000-plus men and women that
do a very difficult job under significant pressure, under a no-
fail system. They perform incredibly well, in my view.
It has been my privilege since I have been the
administrator to be with them a lot. I have traveled to many,
many airports, many Federal air marshal services offices, and
visited our vetting centers. The thing to think about with TSA
is, you know, the image of TSA is the checkpoint, and that is
where most American citizens encounter the Transportation
Security Administration. But we have many, many layers of
security.
There are a lot of people that the traveling public
wouldn't necessarily recognize as being in TSA because they are
in airports, but they are not in the uniform. But they are
ensuring compliance with the regulations we place on the
airlines and at the airports. Additionally, we have a good
international footprint, because we have very strong
relationships with our international partners, and we are
facing a global threat.
From my perspective, one of the most important things I can
do as a TSA administrator is when I make decisions on things, I
make it from the standpoint of being in the shoes of the men
and women who are on the front lines of the agency. That is
what you did as a chief. It is what I did when I was a Coast
Guard officer, is I always tried to place myself in the shoes
of the person who is directly delivering the services the
agency provides.
So that is the perspective I have taken on everything that
I have done. We have put together a career advancement program
for our transportation security officers, the lion's share of
our front-line work force, some 45,000 people. That career
progression should be released very, very shortly. It is
signature ready. It just--and I have already approved it. It is
above me for approval.
That will map out a career progression for our officers. It
will show what training we will provide them and what pay gates
they can go through as they advance throughout their careers.
Additionally, as I have looked at the TSA organization, you
know, I am looking for opportunities for--how can we
organizationally provide more career-broadening opportunities
for our work force? That is a key part of my focus. So I hope
to leave this agency when my time is up as the administrator,
which I hope is no time soon, because I really do enjoy this
job, and I feel very rewarded by the opportunity to serve the
men and women who serve in TSA, that our job satisfaction
numbers are significantly increased.
I would dearly love to pay our transportation security
officers, in particular at the lower pay bands, more money. I
just don't have the budget flexibility to do that at this point
in time. But if I could find it, I will.
Mrs. Demings. If you had--I am sorry, I am out of time----
Mr. Katko. You are out of time. I am sorry, Ms. Demings.
Mrs. Demings. OK, thank you very much.
Mr. Katko. This concludes the first panel for today's
hearings. Members are advised that we will take a short recess
of 5 minutes or less and begin the second panel. Thank you.
[Recess.]
Mr. Katko. I would like to welcome our second panel for
today's hearing. Our first witness is Mr. Kevin Burke, who is
president and CEO of Airports Council International, North
America. Mr. Burke joined ACINA as president and CEO in January
2014 and has since focused on expanding the organization's
reach and influence by amplifying the role of airports in
everyday life, as well as unifying and advancing the industry.
Prior to joining ACINA, he served for 13 years as president
and CEO of the American Apparel and Footwear Association and
has more than 30 years of experience in government relations.
Mr. Burke is now recognized for 5 minutes for an opening
statement. Now, I will remind both Mr. Burke and Mr. Cox that
your full statements have been entered into the record.
STATEMENT OF KEVIN M. BURKE, PRESIDENT, OFFICE OF SECURITY
OPERATIONS, AIRPORTS COUNCIL INTERNATIONAL NORTH AMERICA
Mr. Burke. Thank you, Chairman Katko, Ranking Member Watson
Coleman, and Members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to provide the airport operators' perspective on--
--
Mr. Katko. I am sorry, Mr. Burke. Is your speaker on?
Mr. Burke. Yes, it is.
Mr. Katko. OK.
Mr. Burke. Can you hear me now? How is that? Is that
better? Good, OK. Thank you for the opportunity to provide the
airport operators' perspective on TSA's fiscal year 2018 budget
request.
Every day, airports across America operate in a dynamic
threat environment that requires a variety of security measures
to keep passengers, employees, and facilities safe. To mitigate
these threats, airport partners with the TSA, Federal, State,
and local law enforcement agencies, and their airline partners
to develop a comprehensive, multi-layered, and risk-based
aviation security system.
ACINA airports appreciate the efforts of Administrator
Pekoske and his team to coordinate more closely with industry.
Also, Members of this committee have implemented measures to
make TSA a more effective and more efficient organization.
Consistent funding that keeps pace with continued growth in
passenger traffic is essential ensure to TSA's long-term
success. To that end, Mr. Chairman, ACINA offers the following
budget priorities to make the airport environment safer and
more secure.
No. 1, Congress should provide funding for the number of
transportation security officers and passenger screening
canines necessary to effectively and efficiently screen
passengers and baggage. Airports across the country report
significantly longer TSA checkpoint wait lines due to the
combined effects of insufficient TSA staffing, growing
passenger traffic, and increased scrutiny of passengers and
their carry-on luggage.
Large groups of people waiting at passenger screening
checkpoints create an unnecessary security vulnerability.
Airports appreciate the efforts of Congress to provide TSA more
resources for screening checkpoints, but TSA's own resources
allocation model clearly demonstrates that security checkpoints
around the country remain understaffed by several thousand
TSOs.
We have all seen that ourselves when TSA is routinely
unable to open all of the screening lanes at many checkpoints,
including PreCheck lanes. To help TSA keep pace with the
growing volume and security demands, Congress should increase
funding for the TSO work force and passenger screening canines.
No. 2, Congress should ensure that TSA has the funds
necessary to fulfill its obligations to reimburse airports
under the law enforcement officer reimbursement program. Now,
TSA created the LEO reimbursement program to partially
reimburse airports for providing law enforcement officer
staffing to support TSA's screening operations. Now, while many
airports have entered in reimbursable agreements with TSA to
assist the agency in meeting its statutory mandate, the
reimbursement rate declined dramatically over the past decade,
and now the administration has called for the wholesale
elimination of what we consider to be a very essential program.
As security threats at the airport continue to evolve and
TSA imposes additional requirements on airport law enforcement
officers, it is essential in our view for Congress to continue
to provide TSA adequate funding for the LEO reimbursement
program.
No. 3, Congress should ensure that TSA continues to staff
airport exit lanes. Airports appreciate the continued support
of Congress in ensuring that TSA abides by the provision in the
Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 directing the agency to continue
to monitor exit lanes. There are potential security issues and
significant costs associated with an unfunded mandate for
airport operators to provide staff to monitor these exit lanes
as called for in this year's budget request.
No. 4, Congress should provide funding for research,
development, and deployment of new technology capable of
detecting emerging threats and increasing efficiency. TSA needs
to support programs like its innovation task force to deploy
and maintain automated screening lanes, procure and install
systems to monitor exit lanes, and accelerate the testing and
procurement of CT technology at passenger checkpoints.
Developing and installing next-generation technology will
increase security. It will produce significant budget savings
and enhance the traveler convenience and experience at
airports.
No. 5, Congress should ensure TSA has the funds necessary
to replace outdated explosive detection systems and reimburse
eligible airports for the installation of past systems. TSA
needs funding to replace in-line checked baggage screening
systems that have or are rapidly reaching the end of their
useful lives. We also appreciate Congress providing funding in
the 2018 omnibus for TSA to reimburse airports for past EDS
deployments and we encourage Congress to continue to follow
through on this commitment with additional funding.
In addition to the budget requests recommendation I have
just detailed, Mr. Chairman, I encourage the committee to
consider the authorization recommendations included in my
written testimony as it looks to craft additional aviation
security legislation this year. Thank you for the opportunity
to testify today, and I welcome any questions the committee
might have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Burke follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kevin M. Burke
April 12, 2018
Good afternoon Chairman Katko, Ranking Member Watson Coleman, and
Members of the subcommittee. Thank you for this opportunity to provide
the airport operators' perspective on the Transportation Security
Administration's (TSA) fiscal year 2019 budget request.
As the president and CEO of Airports Council International--North
America (ACI-NA), I am submitting this testimony on behalf of the
local, regional, and State governing bodies that own and operate
commercial airports throughout the United States and Canada. Our
airport members enplane more than 95 percent of the domestic and
virtually all the international airline passenger and cargo traffic in
the two countries.
ACI-NA and its members are steadfastly committed to ensuring that
our Nation's aviation system remains safe, secure, and efficient for
all users, while at the same time keeping it open for facilitating
legitimate travel and trade for millions of passengers. Operating in a
dynamic threat environment, airport operators coordinate closely with
TSA on a variety of measures to provide for the security of their
passengers, employees, and facilities. Airports have been in the past
and remain today a prime target for those intent on inflicting harm. To
mitigate this threat, airports partner with the TSA, Federal, State,
and local law enforcement agencies, and our airline partners to develop
and maintain a comprehensive, multi-layered, risk-based aviation
security system.
TSA faces the enormous challenge of screening millions of
passengers and their baggage--a challenge that requires visionary
leadership, innovation, a dedicated workforce, and sustained funding
from Congress. Airports appreciate the efforts Administrator Pekoske
and his team, the Transportation Security Officers (TSOs) on the front
lines, and Members of this committee have put in place to make TSA a
more effective and a more efficient organization, and one that does a
better job coordinating with industry.
Consistent funding that keeps pace with the continued growth in
passenger traffic is essential to ensure TSA's success. As such ACI-NA
strongly supports the TSA's responsibility for providing checkpoint
screening, assisting local law enforcement, and deploying new
technologies to make the airport environment safer and more secure, and
offers the following recommended funding priorities in the coming year:
Congress should provide funding for the number of
Transportation Security Officers (TSOs) and Passenger Screening
Canines necessary to effectively and efficiently screen
passengers and baggage.--Airports across the country are
reporting significantly longer TSA checkpoint wait times due to
the combined effects of insufficient TSA staffing, growing
passenger traffic, and increased scrutiny of passengers and
their carry-on baggage. With passenger traffic increasing again
this year, airports are extremely concerned about the
vulnerability associated with large groups of passengers
waiting at TSA passenger screening checkpoints, as well as the
potential for misconnecting checked baggage and passengers who
miss their intended flights, especially during the busy summer
travel season. Due to existing staffing shortages, for
instance, TSA is routinely unable to open all the screening
lanes at many security checkpoints, including PreCheck lanes.
Airports appreciate the past efforts of Congress to provide TSA
more resources at screening checkpoints after the aviation
industry faced multiple, well-publicized checkpoint meltdowns.
But TSA's own resource allocation model clearly demonstrates
that security checkpoints around the country remain
understaffed by several thousand TSOs. To help TSA keep pace
with growing security demands, as well as the increasing volume
of passengers and baggage, Congress should increase funding for
the TSO workforce and to increase the number of Passenger
Screening Canines. Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response
Teams also play an important role in helping to enhance
security in the public areas of airports.
Congress should ensure that TSA has the funds necessary to
fulfill its obligation to reimburse airports under the Law
Enforcement Officer (LEO) Reimbursement Program, rejecting the
administration's request to eliminate the program and shift the
full burden to airports.--TSA created the LEO Reimbursement
Program in order to partially reimburse airports for providing
law enforcement officer staffing at security checkpoints--as
required in Federal law--because the agency did not have the
funding to do so. Many airports have entered into reimbursable
agreements with TSA to provide qualified law enforcement
officers to support TSA screening operations. Not only has the
reimbursement rate declined dramatically over the past decade,
but the present administration has called for eliminating this
essential program. As security threats at the airport continue
to evolve--and TSA imposes additional requirements on airport
law enforcement officers--it is essential for Congress to
continue to provide TSA adequate funding to fully support the
LEO Reimbursement Program.
Congress should ensure that TSA continues to staff airport
exit lanes, rejecting the administration's request to eliminate
the program and shift the full burden to airports.--We
appreciate the continued support of Congress in ensuring that
TSA abides by the provision in the Bipartisan Budget Act of
2013, which specifically directs the agency to continue to
monitor exit lanes where it performed the function on December
1, 2013. Airports remain concerned about potential security
issues and the significant costs associated with the real
potential for a costly unfunded mandate for airport operators
to provide staff to monitor these exit lanes, as suggested in
this year's budget request. In addition, we support the efforts
of TSA to install appropriate monitoring technology where
feasible and appropriate, and will continue to work with this
committee to support TSA in deploying such technology.
Congress should provide funding for research, development,
and deployment of new technology.--ACI-NA supports enhancing
the security of the aviation system through research,
development, testing, and deployment of cutting-edge screening
technology capable of detecting new threats to aviation and
increasing efficiency. TSA needs additional funding and support
for its Innovation Task Force--to deploy and maintain automated
screening lanes, procure and install systems to monitor exit
lanes, and accelerate the procurement, testing, and deployment
of computed tomography (CT) at passenger checkpoints. Deploying
and installing ``next generation'' technology will increase
security, produce significant budget savings, and enhance
traveler convenience. We applaud TSA for leveraging industry
expertise as it revises its Capital Investment Plan.
Congress should ensure TSA has the funds necessary to
replace outdated explosive detection systems (EDS), and
continue to fulfill its obligation to reimburse eligible
airports for the installation of past EDS.--As many EDS have or
are rapidly reaching the end of their useful lives, TSA needs
funding to replace these systems. Absent necessary funding, TSA
will incur increasing costs to operate and maintain old systems
that routinely break down and adversely impact security and
airport operations. We appreciate Congress providing funding in
the 2018 Omnibus Appropriations Act for TSA to reimburse
airports for previously-incurred costs associated with the
construction and deployment of in-line checked baggage
screening systems. Since these airports diverted significant
amounts of money from other important aviation security
projects in the months after 9/11 so they could purchase and
install EDS systems, we encourage Congress to continue to
follow through on this commitment with additional funding, and
to prohibit TSA from redirecting any unused EDS funds to other
TSA programs until all eligible airports receive full
reimbursement.
In addition to the budget-request recommendations listed above, I
encourage the subcommittee to consider the following authorization
recommendations as it looks to craft additional aviation-security
legislation this year:
Congress must end the diversion of the 9/11 Passenger
Security Fee to subsidize other Federal programs.--The 9/11
passenger security fee was intended to fund civil aviation
security services, including the salary, benefits, and overtime
for TSOs, and the acquisition, operation, and maintenance of
screening technology. However, over a 10-year period, $12.6
billion of the user fee will be siphoned off to subsidize other
Federal programs. With chronically long lines and wait times at
TSA security checkpoints, the entire 9/11 passenger security
fee should be used to adequately fund the TSO staffing levels
necessary to effectively and efficiently screen passengers and
their baggage.
Congress should establish a grant program focused on airport
security.--In accordance with an Aviation Security Advisory
Committee (ASAC) recommendation, an airport security-focused
grant program at TSA would support the deployment of perimeter,
access control, automated screening lanes, and other security
technology at airports. Airport operators have limited funding
that must be prioritized across a multitude of safety,
security, and operational projects. While the DHS grant
programs have dispensed billions of dollars for systems and
technology to bolster State, Tribal, and local security, very
little, if any, has been allocated to airports. Moreover,
additional resources--through a long-overdue modernization of
the Passenger Facility Charge--are urgently needed to fund
needed infrastructure projects--such as checkpoint expansions--
that will bolster security and passenger flows at their
facilities.
Congress should codify TSA's risk-based approach to aviation
security.--Risk-based security should be the cornerstone on
which new security initiatives are created. Effective risk-
based decisions must consider intelligence, vulnerability,
existing airport security measures, operational impacts, and
costs when determining what measures may be necessary to
mitigate concerns. On occasion, operationally infeasible
security mandates have resulted from reactive responses to
preliminary or unconfirmed threat information. In consideration
of limited Government and industry resources, it is essential
that TSA fully embrace and incorporate risk-based security as a
core business practice when contemplating new policies and
evaluating new security requirements in terms of their ability
to mitigate threats. The process should be structured in such a
way that alternate measures, providing a commensurate level of
security, are considered.
Congress should require TSA to review and reform its process
for issuing Security Directives.--TSA should only use Security
Directives to respond to specific threats and emergency
situations, and, to the greatest extent possible, coordinate
with industry to ensure the requirements are operationally
feasible. Also, every Security Directive should include a
sunset date. Further, since there is no process to evaluate the
cumulative impact of multiple Security Directives that impose
duplicative, costly, and sometimes contradictory security
requirements, TSA should establish a formal process to review
and assess the cost of longstanding security requirements
imposed on airports.
Congress should enhance the Screening Partnership Program
(SPP).--In order to make SPP a more viable option for airports,
Congress should require TSA to transition to a privatized
screening workforce within 1 year of approving an airports'
application to participate in the program. In addition, SPP
contracts should include a metric so that authorized staffing
levels keep pace with increases in passenger traffic.
Congress should separate TSA Compliance from Security
Operations.--Rather than the current structure, under which
Transportation Security Inspectors enforce their own
interpretation of policy, Congress should direct TSA to
separate the Office of Compliance from Security Operations. The
Office of Compliance should be a stand-alone office reporting
to its own assistant administrator.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. I welcome any
questions you may have.
Mr. Katko. Thank you, Mr. Burke. We appreciate your being
here today and your testimony. Looking forward to it.
Our second witness is Mr. J. David Cox, who currently
serves as the national president of the American Federation of
Government Employees. Mr. Cox was first elected president of
AFGE in August 2012, and was re-elected to a second term in
2015. AFGE has increased its membership by more than 90,000
employees since Mr. Cox was first elected to national office in
2006. As a nationally recognized labor leader, Mr. Cox was
appointed by President Obama to serve on the Federal Salary
Council and the Federal Prevailing Wage Council.
Mr. Cox is now recognized for 5 minutes for an opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF JEFFREY DAVID COX, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
Mr. Cox. Thank you very much, Chairman Katko and Ranking
Member Watson Coleman and Ranking Member Thompson and Member
Estes. Thank you all for having me here today. I always enjoy
the Southern hospitality that I experience with this group and
the collegiality that this group always has together and as
they go for the interest of the American public.
But I want to talk about TSOs. They are the front line of
the airport security. They are the eyes, the ears, the hands of
TSA at the checkpoints and the baggage areas. They are the most
visible of TSA's components and the most likely to be blamed
when things go wrong, but we are almost never recognized for
the excellent job that they do.
I ask that Congress and TSA show their appreciation for
TSOs' contribution to our Nation's security by guaranteeing
fair treatment on the job. I also ask that Congress ensure TSOs
have the resources they need to carry out their mission.
Security screening of passengers and baggage was
Federalized as a consequence of careful examination of our
Nation's aviation security practices following September 11.
That examination found that fatal security lapses were due to
the fact that private screening contractors operated with too
little oversight. The screeners they employed had little
training, no standard operating procedures, high turnover, and
very low pay.
For 15 years, TSOs have kept America safe from terrorism
and other risks. They get the job done. Their record is one we
shall all be applauding today. For example, last year, TSOs
seized 3,391 firearms at checkpoints, most of them loaded. They
defied projections of long wait times during severe
understaffings in last spring and summer as the busiest times
of the travel season.
Yet there are politicians who continue to try to privatize
TSA. Make no mistake: Privatization through the Screening
Partnership Program takes us back to pre-9/11 conditions. The
future of TSA lies with Federal employees as TSO and not
private contractors. Regarding their treatment on the job, TSA
administrators have the option to decide whether to provide
fundamental workplace rights and protections to TSOs. These
basic rights should not be subject to the whim of whoever
happens to sit in the corner office.
Employee rights should not be subject to political
appointee preferences, but current law allows for this. We ask
that TSOs be granted the same statutory rights that protect all
Federal employees from political influence and employment
conditions that vary, depending upon which party is in power.
AFGE recently ratified a contract with TSA by means of a
collective bargaining process that is deeply inferior to what
that which other Government agencies have been able to
negotiate with their unions.
TSA unilaterally changed and implemented rules inconsistent
with previously agreed-upon rules. This reminds TSOs constantly
that their own Government considers them second-class
employees. TSOs should have statutory rights and protections
under Title 5 of the U.S. Code, such as employment
discrimination protections and full collective bargaining
rights.
I want to salute Ranking Member Bennie Thompson,
Representative Nita Lowey, and Senator Brian Schatz for
continuing to stand up for the TSO work force by introducing
the Rights for Transportation Security Employees Act and the
Strengthening American Transportation Security Act in the House
and Senate.
Both bills ensure TSOs and all other TSA employees have
rights and protections under Title 5. I urge you to enact these
bills into law. I ask again that Congress and TSA welcome TSOs
as full partners in protecting the public. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify, and I look forward to answering any
questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cox follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jeffrey David Cox
March 14, 2018
Chairman Katko and Ranking Member Watson Coleman, my name is J.
David Cox, and I am the national president of the American Federation
of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (AFGE), representing over 700,000
Federal workers, including over 42,000 Transportation Security Officers
(TSOs) who serve on the front line of aviation security at our Nation's
airports. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the
Transportation and Protective Security subcommittee for the hearing on
Examining the President's Fiscal Year 2019 Budget Request for the
Transportation Security Administration. The officers represented by
AFGE are critical to the Transportation Security Administration's
(TSA's) mission and integral to the National security framework but
face unnecessary difficulties we believe are largely created by TSA's
failure to seek the funding necessary to address acute staffing
shortages and to adequately compensate TSOs, especially officers who
have shown a long-term dedication to the flying public by staying on
the job.
TSOs are the most visible position in the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) and interact most often with the public. The officers
represented by AFGE are required to apply constantly-evolving
procedures that change according to TSA's risk assessment, perform
their duties swiftly, pleasantly interact with the public and are
expected to never make a mistake. In 2017 TSOs discovered 3,957
firearms in carry-on bags at checkpoints of which 84 percent were
loaded. While screening more than 771 million passengers and 466
million checked bags daily, our officers completed 2017 successfully,
without a single terrorist incident on a TSA-screened aircraft and
without a repeat of the long checkpoint lines of 2 years ago. The TSOs
represented by AFGE appreciate the challenges of protecting the flying
public, but wonder when they will receive tangible acknowledgment of
their hard work and assistance in performing their duties.
Despite their important role in the seamless framework of aviation
of security, the TSO workforce continues to be confronted with serious
workplace issues. AFGE commends Administrator Pekoske for identifying
and discussing two of those important issues at a November 8, 2017
hearing: Employee morale and pay rates for officers. Administrator
Pekoske previously testified that employee morale is an incredibly
high-priority issue and he believes that as employee morale improves,
security effectiveness improves at the same time as attrition declines.
AFGE agrees and believes the fiscal year 2019 TSA budget presents
options to address the entrenched low employee morale at the agency and
improve aviation security. AFGE would urge Administrator Pekoske to
show the same commitment to increasing officers' pay and addressing
staffing shortages as he has in advocating for increased training. The
fiscal year 2019 TSA budget presents the following solutions to on-
going problems at TSA:
instill objectivity and fair compensation to the tsa pay system
TSA officers are underpaid, and the wage issues follow the
workforce from smaller current paychecks to smaller retirement checks.
New TSA officers are paid under the so-called D pay band. After
completing 1 year on the job they automatically move to the E pay band
in addition to the CEI and TOPS pay increases received for the last 2
years. For the rest of the time they remain TSOs, the workforce remains
in the E pay band unless promoted to another position at the agency.
Because TSA recently eliminated the Behavioral Detection Officer
position, TSOs can no longer achieve the higher G pay band, a
difference of thousands of dollars. After failing to raise TSO base pay
for a 5-year period, in 2014 TSA increased starting D and E band pay by
5 percent, but failed to also adjust the pay of TSOs with years on the
job. As a result, the pay of a TSO with 1 year on the job is now within
a few thousand of a veteran TSO with 10 years on the job. TSOs do not
receive the time-in-grade or other longevity pay increases that are
built into the GS pay system. TSO paychecks fail to reflect the
importance and expertise demanded of their work, and bonuses, if any,
are not calculated into their pension benefits. The workforce deserves
a pay system that is fair and adequately reflects their training, the
complexities of tasks, and their seniority.
AFGE makes the following recommendations for the fiscal year 2019
TSA budget:
Adopt the GS pay system for the TSO workforce.
Adjust the pay of veteran TSOs to compensate for years of
wage stagnation and recognize their years of work at TSA.
TSA should request the funding necessary to adequately
compensate the TSO workforce.
tsa should adequately staff checkpoint and baggage screening
The House Fiscal Year 2018 Department of Homeland Security report
stated of TSA Appropriations:
``The committee is concerned that, despite the continued upward trend
in air travel, TSA continues to use artificially low estimates for
anticipated growth in passenger volume when developing its
Transportation Security Officer staffing requirements, resulting in
multiple reprogramming actions in the year of execution to address
rising wait times, or Congress appropriating additional funds above the
budget request to address these unrealistic assumptions. The Committee
supports TSA's efforts to seek innovative improvements in efficiency
and security, and not solely relying on increases in staffing and
overtime to address growth in air travel. Unless the agency uses
realistic projections when developing its budget request, however, it
will simply continue to set itself up for failure.''
We agree with the House appropriations report language but we would
respectfully suggest it should also recognize that it has been the hard
work of TSOs that repeatedly rescues TSA from its failure to address
checkpoint and baggage staffing at airports. For several years Congress
passed spending bills that included arbitrary caps on the number of
TSOs that did not comport with the rise in passengers. AFGE has warned
before of the impact of TSO shortages on the security mission. These
labor shortages also have a disproportionate impact on female TSOs who
face denial of shift or line bids or delayed breaks due to chronic
underrepresentation of women among the TSO ranks.
There are other issues at play in the understaffing problem as
well. For example, TSA failed to fill TSO vacancies based on an
expectation that the public would enroll in TSA PreCheck and other
trusted traveler programs despite evidence to the contrary. In response
to long checkpoint lines during the spring and summer of 2016, former
DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson redirected $34 million in reprogrammed funds
to TSA. Most of this funding was used by TSA for overtime worked by its
existing TSO workforce, even though the number of TSOs had fallen by
5,000 since 2011. The 687 FTE TSO increase in the President's fiscal
year 2019 TSA budget is only a first step. AFGE continues the call for
5,000 additional TSO positions to address the staffing shortages
created by attrition and TSA's erroneous projections. TSA's failure to
adequately staff checkpoint and baggage screening areas leads to
overworked officers and less security for the flying public.
TSA's failure to maintain an adequate workforce also exposes TSOs
to the loss of their jobs with the agency if airport operators threaten
to privatize screening through the Screening Partnership Program as a
means to gain additional staffing. Members of AFGE TSA Local 556 and
Members of the Florida Congressional delegation, including House
Homeland Security Committee member Val Demings, Representatives Darren
Soto and Stephanie Murphy and Senator Bill Nelson are fighting in
opposition to attempts to privatize screening at Orlando International
Airport (OIA) by the airport operator. Despite high satisfaction
ratings from passengers who use the airport, the airport operator
includes inadequate staffing as a reason for the consideration of
privatizing screening at the airport. Any problem in Orlando can be
traced to highest-in-the-Nation passenger volume per checkpoint, and to
the failure of local TSA managers to adequately manage that operation.
While AFGE believes it is inappropriate for airport operators to hold
the jobs and lives of the TSO workforce at the airport as a pawn
against TSA, it is equally wrong for TSA to set a ceiling on TSO
workforce instead of allocating that workforce by need.
I also want to emphasize that all 2 million of the passengers
departing on flights from U.S. airports must be screened by a person,
regardless of canine alerts, enrollment in PreCheck, or the use of
technology.
end the separate and unequal personnel systems at tsa
AFGE calls upon Administrator Pekoske to end TSA's separate and
unequal personnel system that provides supervisors, administrative
staff, and all other TSA employee rights that are denied to TSO, who
make up the vast majority of the workforce. TSA has denied TSOs the
ability to appeal adverse personnel decisions to the Merit Systems
Protection Board (MSPB) or an independent third party. A minority of
TSA employees, including supervisors and managers, can appeal adverse
personnel decision to the MSPB. In January the DHS Office of Inspector
General issued a report detailing how high-ranking TSA officials
(Deputy Administrator Mark Hatfield, Chief Counsel Francine Kerner, and
former Office of Professional Responsibility Assistant Administrator
Heather Book) interfered with TSA disciplinary process to ensure a more
lenient outcome for the Transportation Security Executive Service
employee found to have violated TSA policies and procedures. TSOs are
denied the protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Back-Pay
Act simply because their job classification is that of transportation
security officer and TSA has blocked the application of the law to
them. If the agency wishes to increase employee morale to reflect that
of other Government agencies, it must treat all its employees the same
rather than continue a separate and unequal system within TSA.
TSA must also address labor-management rollbacks that have
increased under Administrator Pekoske. Since the start of the Trump
administration, TSA has announced the following rollbacks:
The end of quarterly labor-management meetings
The end of the National Advisory Council and the Diversity
Advisory Council--both employee- and manager-led committees
that jointly tackle Nation-wide workforce issues.
Refused to meet with AFGE TSA Council 100, the exclusive
representative of the TSO workforce and instead hosts random
``town halls'' at some airports. The town hall attendees are
selected by TSA and are made up of mostly managers and
supervisors. The town halls are not focused on the needs of the
largest most critical portion of TSA: The front-line screening
workforce.
Refused to sign the most recent collective bargaining
agreement (CBA) between AFGE and TSA.
Sought to undermine third-party review and resolution of
disputed CBA provisions.
Unilaterally deemed ``non-negotiable'' provisions that were
negotiable under the last CBA.
Continued to refuse to negotiate a grievance procedure with
AFGE.
Awarded a non-competitive contract worth more than $500,000
to evaluate TSA's dispute resolution system to a contractor
from the Chickasaw Nation that has demonstrated no expertise in
dispute resolution, grievance review, or TSA's grievance system
specifically.
TSA has eliminated existing labor-management frameworks for solving
issues between the agency and employees through their exclusive
representative. I have urged Administrator Pekoske to commit to
building a labor-management relationship at TSA and addressing issues
with the employees' elected exclusive representative. We engage with
the front-line workforce daily and those front-line officers have a lot
to offer to improve labor relations and the overall security mission:
AFGE is their elected conduit for that input.
Congress can also do its part by ensuring TSOs have the same
workplace rights and workplace protections under Title 5 of the U.S.
Code as other DHS employees. H.R. 2309, the Rights for Transportation
Security Officers Act, introduced by Homeland Security Committee
Ranking Member Bennie Thompson (D-MS) and Appropriations Committee
Ranking Member Nita Lowey (D-NY), repeals the authority of TSA to
unilaterally set the terms and conditions of employment for 44,000
TSOs. AFGE strongly supports the Rights for Transportation Security
Officers Act, and I call on you to report this important bill out of
committee.
Meanwhile, the TSA employee attrition rate has far surpassed the
Federal Government attrition rate since the agency was created
following the terrible events of September 11, 2001. Declines in
attrition rates from astronomical highs of over 20 percent to the
current fiscal year attrition rate of about 12 percent is nothing to
brag about and detrimental to security. These high attrition rates do
not occur in other DHS components where the rank-and-file workforce are
afforded workplace rights and protections under title 5 of the U.S.
Code. Similarly, some airports see attrition rates far higher than the
average rate cited by the administrator in previous testimony. We
believe that if we address the issues of pay, staffing, and the
grievance procedure, attrition will start to improve.
AFGE strongly supports H.R. 2514, the Funding for Aviation
Screeners and Threat Elimination Restoration (FASTER) Act introduced by
Representative Peter DeFazio, and Homeland Security Committee Ranking
Member Bennie Thompson and Transportation and Protective Security
Subcommittee Ranking Member Bonnie Watson Coleman. The FASTER Act
provides an ample and much need funding to TSA by returning to TSA the
security fees collected from passengers instead of applying the funds
to pay for other items in the general fund. The FASTER Act would
restore more than $19 billion for use to both the TSOs and technology
to ensure aviation safety and move passengers effectively and
efficiently through airport checkpoints.
conclusion
In this testimony I have outlined numerous proposals for the TSA
workforce that are all related, ultimately, to increasing aviation
security, fairly treating the TSO workforce and in return save taxpayer
funding. This can be accomplished by eliminating poorly conceived and
inefficient H.R. and labor relations programs, processes, and
protections at TSA in favor of those available to Federal workers under
title 5 of the U.S. Code. AFGE has worked successfully with countless
agency heads under administrations of both parties to represent our
members and bolster the performance of the Federal Government function
for the benefit of the U.S. public. There is no good reason why our
union cannot have the same relationship with TSA under the leadership
of Administrator Pekoske. Thank you for the opportunity to share AFGE's
views on these important issues, and I am available to answer any
questions you might have.
Mr. Katko. Thank you, Mr. Cox. We appreciate you being here
today.
I now recognize myself for 5 minutes of questions. I want
to talk for a minute about the PreCheck program and how it
impacts personnel issues and personnel levels at the airports.
Early on, there were some prognostications, if you will, that
TSA PreCheck could get up to 20 million enrollees. We have
spent an awful lot of time and effort trying to get those
numbers up, and they have gone from less than a million to over
4 million now, but nowhere near the 20 million-mark level.
So I was wondering, Mr. Burke, if you could tell us what it
is that they could do better in marketing PreCheck. Where do
you see problems with the current PreCheck program now? If you
could address some of the things that we are concerned about,
especially the security issue, and that is individuals being in
the PreCheck lane that should not be there because they are not
enrollees. The time of them doing that is going to be ending
quickly by law, hopefully, because we are introducing
legislation to fix that.
But I would like to hear your take on that, if you would.
Mr. Burke. Well, Mr. Chairman, to address the first part of
your question, we as an organization, airports have fully
supported PreChecks. We look at the opportunity to be able to
move safely and efficiently passengers through their lines as
the ability to be able to keep people safe at airports.
We have advocated to TSA that they market this program
better than they have had. We have offered--our airports have
offered space for people to enroll at airports as they get
there, free of charge. They open up an office. You can enroll.
I have offered the advice to TSA that, why don't we do the same
thing that the folks in Customs do with their passports and be
able to go to a local post office to be able to begin the
application process?
Eventually you will have to go to an airport for an
interview, but to begin the process, because most people that
we want to have join TSA PreCheck don't travel as much as I do.
I travel all year long. But we have people who infrequently do
it who would benefit greatly from the ability to do that.
So we advocated better marketing of the program. The
numbers are better. They can do much, much better. The
challenge is, though, even with marketing TSA PreCheck, TSA has
to have the officers and the ability to man those PreCheck
lanes. It is great to have PreCheck, but if you don't have TSOs
to be able to support that, then the program is effective, but
not as effective as it could be.
So better marketing, the ability for us to be able to--and
TSA to get more people in line, making it easier for the
traveling public to become part of the program.
Mr. Katko. Thank you. Anything you would like to add, Mr.
Cox?
Mr. Cox. I would agree with the statement. Even with the
PreCheck, as that lane moves a little faster, you still have to
have employees. There still has to be the screener there, the
person monitoring the folks going through the screening,
checking the baggage. It moves faster, but if you don't have
employees or the lanes are closed at certain hours, they are
still of no benefit. So--and that is the first lanes they will
close down in many airports that I go through. I am in airports
virtually every day of my life. That is the lane that will get
closed the quickest, and they will funnel the passengers into
the other lanes.
So you still have to have the staff. TSA has about 5,000
less screeners now than they were several years ago.
Mr. Katko. I want to follow up basically on a more broader
topic here, Mr. Burke first. The stakeholder engagement in the
budget process, could you describe if you have had any
engagement whatsoever in the process or any input? The same
question would be for Mr. Cox, as well.
Mr. Burke. Well, in terms of direct impact, we have staff
who talk to TSA and the administration about the need for
airports. We have advocated for more officers. We have
advocated for Congress to continue to fund exit lanes. More LEO
reimbursement, because we see that as essential to help our TSA
officers at the front lines of security at airports.
So we have advocated as an industry that the more security
we have at airports, the safer passengers are. We have
transmitted that message to TSA and the administration. We
began the administration with a list of regulatory changes that
we were hoping would happen, and in that recommendation are how
we would deal with TSA.
We view TSA as a partner. We have a very good relationship
with them. We have nearly 900 million people that pass through
United States airports every year. So the job that TSA does to
secure the safety of these people from the beginning when they
enter the airport from the time they step on the plane is an
enormous responsibility. We view this as an airport being able
to work with a regulatory agency like TSA together with our on-
site law enforcement people as a multi-pronged, multi-ring
ability to be able to secure the airport, whether it be through
cameras, whether it be through dog patrols, whether it be
through officers walking through the airport.
But we have expressed our position that more needs to be
done, more officers--to my colleague's position here--more
officers need to be put in place to protect the traveling
public.
Mr. Katko. OK, briefly, Mr. Cox? I only have a few moments.
Anything you would like to add?
Mr. Cox. We advocate, we write letters, we--to all the
Members of Congress, as well as to the administration, but an
active role into the budget process, no, sir, we don't. I would
say, I suspect each one of you, as you plan for your budget for
your office, you sit down with your staff and you start
projecting the needs for the coming year and look to those
people that help you do that work. I think TSA needs to look to
the TSOs through their exclusive representative, AFGE, what
would it take to run a successful TSA?
Mr. Katko. Thank you very much. I would be remiss if I did
not note, as I try to at every hearing, the incredibly great
job that TSOs do under very difficult circumstances. They are
constantly trying to find the proverbial needle in a haystack
under stressful and difficult conditions, and they do a
remarkably good job with what they are faced with. So I
appreciate them.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi,
the Ranking Member, Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much. Thank you, gentlemen,
both for being here. Mr. Cox, it is always nice to get a
witness that has the same accent as the Ranking Member. So I am
more than happy to be here.
You heard my line of questioning to the administrator
relative to pay, longevity pay, evaluations, pay scale. What
was your reaction to his answers to me?
Mr. Cox. I believe that the administrator would like to pay
the employees more money. But I heard him say, ``But I only
have so much money.'' If the TSOs were on the Title 5 pay
scale, when Congress did its budget as it did a few weeks ago,
it passed the budget, the TSOs would have gotten their cost-of-
living raises, they would have gotten their within grade
raises, they would have gotten those things like all other
Federal employees would have received. It wouldn't have been a
burden upon an administrator to decide ``I can or can't give
but so much to so many,'' and the haves and the have-nots. They
should be treated like all other Federal employees.
Mr. Thompson. So is your testimony that you are not asking
for anything more for the people you represent, other than what
other Federal employees enjoy every day at the workplace?
Mr. Cox. That is exactly right, like all other Federal
employees, Border Patrol, ICE agents, Coast Guard agents, all
of those folks in Homeland Security are on the GS pay system.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you.
Mr. Burke, do you support the collection of passenger
security fees?
Mr. Burke. Do we support--absolutely. As a matter of fact,
we have expressed concern about the diversion of the security
fees that should be going to TSA that have been diverted to go
to other programs.
Mr. Thompson. That is the second part of my question.
Mr. Burke. OK. I read your mind.
Mr. Thompson. Absolutely. So the diversion going to deficit
reduction versus items that you are about to illuminate would
be a far better use in your professional opinion than what it
is presently going to?
Mr. Burke. That is correct.
Mr. Thompson. I yield back.
Mr. Katko. Let the record reflect that is the first time I
have seen you not use all your time.
[Laughter.]
The Chair now recognizes Mrs. Watson Coleman for 5 minutes
of questioning.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you. It is good to see you, Mr.
Cox, and it is good to hear from you, Mr. Burke.
Mr. Cox, the employee disciplinary process for TSOs, is
that different than it is for other Federal employees?
Mr. Cox. Yes, ma'am, it is.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. How so?
Mr. Cox. Well, it changes by the hour. It can change
totally at the desire of the administrator or the
administrator's general counsel. It goes through these
resolution committees. They can decide to accept it or just
totally reject it. It is very much of a kangaroo court.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Does that contribute to the concern
with morale?
Mr. Cox. Yes, ma'am, it does, because they are not treated
fairly like everyone else.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. So there was a ranking that was done
and TSA was ranked like 339? Something of that--336 out of 339.
But it was ranked dead last because of the pay scale?
Mr. Cox. The pay scale and also the work rules that TSA
has.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Like what work rules?
Mr. Cox. The work rules governing collective bargaining.
They don't have full Title 5 collective bargaining rights. They
don't have the appeal rights that other Federal employees
have----
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Do they have any negotiation ability?
Mr. Cox. We have--we negotiate over when you can wear
shorts and when you can wear long pants and when you can wear
short-sleeved shirt and when you can wear a long-sleeved shirt,
according to the temperature in the work area.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. So the President's budget in a number
of ways I found very troubling. One of the ways, one of the
issues that I found particularly troubling was the reduction of
the reimbursements to the local enforcement officers. So I am
wondering, how does the LEO reimbursement diminishment impact
the safety and security of the TSO officers?
Mr. Cox. Our officers, our members are dependent upon local
law enforcement for the protection. Obviously, I think we are
all very much aware of what happened in Los Angeles and what
happened in New Orleans, that we have had one officer killed,
other officers injured. But for police being in that area,
local law enforcement intervening and moving forward, I think
things could have been a lot worse. That local law enforcement
is the only people that have weapons and have arrest authority,
those type things for the protection of not just TSOs, but the
American traveling public.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. So how many TSOs are there?
Mr. Cox. There is right at 44,000.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. There are 44,000. How many would you
consider to be full staffing?
Mr. Cox. Right now, I would say we are down right at about
5,000 from where we were at several years ago.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Was that full staff?
Mr. Cox. That was when the agency was beginning. Pretty
much full staffing. There is a lot more air traffic now and
more passengers than there was 5 years ago.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Well, I think I have got the message
as it relates to the sort of unpredictability and anxiety this
creates for employees and the system and how it is really
controlled by individual decisions, individual preferences.
Thank you very much for that.
I yield back.
Mr. Katko. Thank you, Mrs. Watson Coleman. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Estes, for
questioning.
Mr. Estes. Thank you, Chairman. Mr. Burke, recently you
spoke at the 2018 aviation summit and mentioned that some of
the key issues are work-facing industry now, or work force
planning, security, facilitation, and infrastructure. Can you
talk a little bit about how well the President's budget is
addressing those particular issues that you raise there?
Mr. Burke. Well, Mr. Estes, not as well as we would like
them to be. I will start with infrastructure. The President as
a candidate and as a President talked about rebuilding
America's airports through an infrastructure package. We
haven't seen one yet. Hopefully we will have one.
But also, too, Congress had the opportunity several weeks
ago through the omnibus bill to modernize the passenger
facility user fee, which all passengers pay, as a user fee to
pass through our airports. That fee was instituted nearly 20
years ago, and that fee has not increased in 18\1/2\ years. It
is at $4.50. We advocated a $4 increase.
That money would go to modernizing America's airports. The
average age of a terminal in the United States is over 40 years
old. Those airports were created before they had TSA, before we
had the security concerns post-9/11. Yet all of those airports
have had to figure a way to adapt their aging infrastructure to
the requirements of TSA on one side of the airport, Customs and
Border Protection at the other end, with little to no increase
in their PFC to--which is used to build out terminals.
There are times, like, for example, in Syracuse, Chairman
Katko's district, where some of those funds are used for exit
lane technology. Now, we fully support paying for exit lanes.
Congress approved it back in 2013. We fully support that. But
in the future, technology is an opportunity or choice for
airports to be able to change.
Mr. Katko goes through that security system every week, and
it is actually paid for itself through this fee. Yet Congress
had an opportunity to fix that at no cost to the Federal
Government, and it didn't make it through the omnibus process.
Nor did it make it through the authorization process for the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
So I look at it--our industry looks at it as this is a
21st-Century world. We are dealing with airports that were
built in the 20th Century. We have to take the infrastructure
and modernize it to be able to make it efficient and safe for
the traveling public.
So when I look at what is happened, we were excited about
rebuilding airports. The President during his campaign spoke I
think it was over 200 times about us being third-world
airports. We figured this is great, we are going to be able to
get money, we are going to be able to increase the PFC. That
hasn't happened yet.
Our expectation is that over time we will be able to do
that, but in order for us to be able to keep our passengers,
our customers safe, there is a host of things we have to do.
The first start is making certain that the facilities that we
are providing TSA and Customs are that--that makes it easier
for them to do their jobs and makes it safer for passengers to
get through the airport in a safe and efficient manner.
I hope that answers your question, sir.
Mr. Estes. Thank you. Mr. Cox, I have a couple questions
for you. I may start with one just in case we ran out of time,
which wasn't necessarily the one I wanted to start with, but
you had mentioned about private screeners versus, you know,
TSO, Federally-employed TSO agents. I wanted to talk a little
bit about--you were a very strong advocate that we needed to
not be using private screeners. I wanted to make sure that we
weren't missing the boat somewhere in these airports that
currently do have them.
Are there--is it a training issue that the private folks
don't have? Are there tools they don't have, resources they
don't have, procedures that we don't require them to follow
that makes it such a strong concern? You know, do we need to do
something now with those facilities that do use----
Mr. Cox. There were several airports, as you well know,
that in the very beginning that remained with private screeners
that were various size, as sort-of a test. Some--I believe it
was Montana that came in and asked to go private, and then came
back later on and said it is not working for us, we want TSA to
take that back over again.
Occasionally, Kansas City went up for bid several years
ago, and it was a bidder that bid less and got the contract,
and they were struggling to already staff, and the people were
saying now it is going to be even harder to staff, to pay that
staff less. There is also--there is not the mobility that some
people--their lives change. They work in New York, and now
something has happened, they want to work in Arizona. They have
the ability to transfer to another airport, just as Government
employees do, and all other Government agencies. They don't
have that with the private screeners.
We believe that it is proven that they were Federalized and
the Government has done that simply because the private process
was not working effectively throughout this country. We saw
what happened, and I think TSA has a record that is proven to
be great, that this country has had no terrorism since we have
done it with professional staff.
Mr. Estes. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I am out of time. I did
have one more question, if you wanted to allow that, or if we
are doing a second round.
Mr. Katko. Very, very briefly. Thanks, please.
Mr. Estes. My question--and hopefully this doesn't go too
long--I just--are there additional training needs that we might
have for the TSO agents that we can address?
Mr. Cox. I think training is always an issue for any
employee, because I am a registered nurse, worked for the V.A.,
but still yet when there were veterans to be cared for and they
were coming in faster than we were able to take care of them,
if it was my day to go to training, I had to take care of the
veterans.
There is never a shortage of passengers to be screened in
an airport. There is always going to be a rush to go on.
Training has to be planned for in any organization. I think it
is imperative with the technology as it changes almost by the
moment and the screening industry that all the TSOs constantly
have the chance to go to be retrained, to have the refresher
training, to do those type things, to be good and to be the
experts, because as the Chairman said, they do a great job. I
couldn't do that job. I look at that, and I have no idea what
is on that screen. But I know they get me safely from one point
to the other.
Mr. Chairman, can I say to this committee, it is always a
joy to come and testify before this group. We have a lot of
partisanism and all type of things in our Government, but I
have never come to this committee that it hasn't been a great
experience, and every Member of the committee is always
concerned about the American public. That is the lot for every
Member that serves on this committee, sir.
Mr. Estes. Thank you, I yield back.
Mr. Katko. Thank you, Mr. Cox.
I wanted to thank the witnesses for their thoughtful
testimony today. Members of the committee may have some
additional questions for the witnesses. We will ask them to
respond to those in writing.
Pursuant to committee rule VII(D), the hearing record will
be held open for 10 days. Without objection, subcommittee
stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:47 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Questions From Chairman John Katko for David P. Pekoske
Question 1a. In December, TSA Administrator David Pekoske said that
DHS is considering the merger of trusted traveler programs such as
PreCheck and Global Entry to help reduce costs and increase security.
Is this something that DHS is seriously considering, and if so, how
much progress has been made toward combining the two programs?
Question 1b. What sort of cost savings do you expect from combing
the programs?
Answer. While recognizing differences within each program, the
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) are collaborating to identify efficiencies and
security effectiveness within their trusted traveler programs; this
includes reviewing the challenges and opportunities for a potential
merger. TSA and CBP are evaluating the creation of a single DHS on-line
portal to support both programs, including the potential to facilitate
the enrollment of some Global Entry applicants at TSA PreCheck
enrollment centers. As potential solutions are still being developed
and considered, it is premature to determine cost savings.
Questions From Ranking Member Bonnie Watson Coleman for David P.
Pekoske
Question 1a. Passenger volume continues to grow, and if it outpaces
TSA's predictions, TSA will face major wait times, as it did 2 years
ago.
How much passenger volume growth is TSA predicting over fiscal year
2019?
Answer. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
anticipates approximately 3 percent increase in passenger volume for
fiscal year 2019. In the short term, TSA has a plan to meet projected
summer 2018 volume demands by increasing hiring prior to summer, adding
additional overtime resources during the summer months, and increasing
the number of operational Passenger Screening Canine teams. Increased
hiring is currently on track for our peak summer travel period to have
our TSA front-line staffing headcount be 1,600-1,800 higher than July
2017.
Question 1b. How did TSA calculate its predictions for passenger
volume growth when formulating the budget request?
Answer. TSA uses several sources to forecast volume. These include
the Federal Aviation Administration's forecasts, future flight
schedules, industry input, and historical throughput trends.
Question 1c. Did TSA consult with airports and airlines when
formulating these predictions, including taking airport size
constraints into account?
Answer. Yes, TSA requests airport and airline input as part of this
process. Additionally, through the modeling process, size constraints
are considered. Any such constraints are monitored and updated as
airports add new lanes and/or checkpoints. Within available resources,
TSA is able to ensure the staffing is made available to support any new
throughput that is generated.
Question 2a. If there were no budget constraints, how many full-
time equivalent front-line positions do you believe TSA requires to
execute its mission as effectively as possible?
Question 2b. How does that number compare to what is proposed in
the fiscal year 2019 budget?
Answer. The fiscal year 2019 budget request will provide the
resources necessary to meet our mission, if the requirement to staff
exit lanes is turned over to airports as proposed.
Questions From Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson for David P. Pekoske
Question 1. Please provide to the committee the process by which
TSA front-line officers receive regularly-scheduled pay raises, the
percentage of officers who received pay raises in each of the last 3
calendar years, and the average dollar amount of pay raises in each of
the last 3 calendar years. Please do not include changes to Cost of
Living Adjustments as part of the pay raises.
Answer. On an annual basis, TSA leadership outlines any proposed
pay adjustments and/or performance awards at the respective performance
rating levels for the Transportation Security Officer (TSO) workforce.
Nation-wide, the amount of any pay adjustment and/or performance award
will be consistent for all eligible employees with the same rating of
record.
To be eligible to receive a pay adjustment and/or performance
award, employees must meet the following criteria:
(1) Appointment date to the TSO Workforce is on or before June 30
of the current performance year. This allows for the employee
to be on a performance plan a minimum of 90 days prior to the
end of the fiscal year;
(2) Must have a qualifying rating of record of level 3--``Achieved
Expectations'' or higher for the performance cycle in the
current rating year or a presumed rating as a result of an
absence due to military service; and
(3) Must be employed by TSA on the effective date of the TSO
Workforce Performance Payout.
The table below depicts the percentage of officers who received pay
raises in each of the last 3 calendar years:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent TSOs
Receiving
Performance Year Performance
Increase
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015 *.................................................. 41
2016.................................................... 89
2017.................................................... 89
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2015, TSA used a different methodology for determining performance
increases that was dependent on the employee's percentile ranking
within the Federal Security Director's area of responsibility. In
2016, based on feedback from the workforce, this methodology was
changed to reflect Nation-wide consistency for all eligible employees
with the same rating of record.
The table below depicts the average dollar amount of pay raises in
each of the last 3 calendar years:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calendar Year Average Raise
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015.................................................... $448
2016.................................................... $249
2017.................................................... $244
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 2a. In this budget proposal, TSA seems to be wiping its
hands of responsibilities for securing surface transportation. After
cutting grant funding and eliminating the VIPR program, TSA would be
left with almost entirely voluntary surface security programs since it
has still not issued regulations required under the 9/11 Act.
Given these cuts to surface security programs, it is more
imperative than ever that these regulations be issued as quickly as
possible. What is the time line for issuing final rulemakings?
Question 2b. If the Executive Order is an impediment to issuing
these regulations, I would remind the administration that Executive
Orders do not trump statutory requirements. Have you raised this issue
within the administration?
Answer. In the decade since enactment of the 9/11 Commission Act of
2007
(9/11 Act), TSA has worked with Government and industry partners to
enhance the security of surface transportation modes consistent with
the requirements of the
9/11 Act. As a result, 39 of the 41 surface transportation security-
related mandates of the 9/11 Act have been met, including development
of National strategies for public transportation security and railroad
transportation security. These National strategies were developed in
collaboration with industry and have been implemented as part of the
National Strategy for Transportation Security (NSTS).
TSA is prioritizing the outstanding requirements of the 9/11 Act.
As noted in the Spring 2018 Unified Agenda, TSA intends to publish a
final rule to implement the requirements to provide security training
to surface transportation employees in calendar year 2018. TSA will
respond to comments received on the proposed rule as part of the
rulemaking process. TSA also targets calendar year 2018 for publication
of a proposed rule to meet requirements to develop a vetting program to
perform name-based background and immigration checks for front-line
public transportation and railroad employees, and calendar year 2019 to
publish a proposed rule that would require vulnerability assessments
and security planning by owner/operators of higher-risk surface
transportation systems.
TSA continues to work with its stakeholder partners to reduce
vulnerabilities and mitigate risk simultaneously with developing these
regulations. Numerous programs and measures have been developed and
implemented to better protect surface transportation hubs and systems
by building upon and complementing existing Federal safety regulations
and programs. Collaborative efforts between TSA and surface
transportation-related associations have been instrumental in the
development of voluntary standards and recommended practices; the
owners and operators of key systems have consistently adopted these
standards and recommendations to enhance security within their systems.
In early 2017, the President issued two executive orders (EO) on
regulatory reform: EO 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs, and EO 13777, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda.
Like other Federal agencies, TSA must comply with both of those
Executive Orders as it proceeds with issuance of its regulations.
Regulations not exempted from EO 13771 must be offset by elimination of
two other regulatory actions and have deregulatory offsets to ensure
the new regulation has $0 incremental costs or fits within the
Department's regulatory cost allowance. As a department, DHS has a $0
regulatory cost allowance for fiscal year 2018.
Additionally, EO 13771 explicitly exempts ``regulations issued with
respect to a . . . national security . . . function of the United
States'' from the requirements of the EO. OMB's April 5, 2017,
implementing guidance further defines the National security exemption
to include legislative rules for which: (1) The benefit-cost analysis
demonstrates that the regulation is anticipated to improve National
security as its primary direct benefit, and (2) qualify for a ``good
cause'' exception under notice-and-comment rulemaking. TSA does not
anticipate issuing these 9/11 Act rules under the good cause exception
(and has already issued the security training rule as a proposed rule),
and so the rules would not fit within the National security exemption
as provided for in OMB's guidance. OMB has indicated it will make these
determinations on a case-by-case basis at the final rule stage.
Finally, OMB's implementing guidance provides that EO 13771 ``does
not prevent agencies from issuing regulatory actions in order to comply
with an imminent statutory or judicial deadline, even if they are not
able to satisfy EO 13771's requirements by the time of issuance.''
Specifically, the guidance further indicates that under such
circumstance agencies can carry a balance, but must commit to
identifying offsetting deregulatory savings ``as soon as practicable
thereafter.''
Question 3. What security enhancements could TSA make if the $1.3
billion that is being diverted from the Passenger Security Fee went to
TSA?
Answer. Securing the commercial aviation sector is one of the most
important missions within the Department of Homeland Security and this
past year has shown that the threats to aviation continue to evolve and
remain pervasive. If the $1.3 billion were available to TSA, the agency
would work to advance security efforts by investing in several areas
including in capital investment security assets needed to keep up with
the dynamic threats facing aviation, increasing staffing of the front-
line workforce to keep pace with growing passenger volumes, and
training of our employees.
Question 4a. What is the status of the implementation of TSA's
revised policy for Law Enforcement Availability Pay issued in August
2017?
Question 4b. How does this policy change affect TSA criminal
investigators who are currently at or over the General Schedule pay
cap?
Question 4c. Does the application of the General Schedule pay cap
mean that those who are currently at or near the TSA pay cap because of
LEAP compensation will be subject to an immediate pay cut? Why or why
not?
Answer. On August 9, 2017, Acting Administrator Gowadia announced
that TSA would immediately adhere to the title 5 Law Enforcement
Availability Pay (LEAP) cap for TSA law enforcement officers, our
Federal Air Marshals and 1811 Criminal Investigators. For Federal Air
Marshals and Criminal Investigators whose basic salary and LEAP were
below the General Schedule (GS) 15, Step 10 premium pay cap for their
locality pay area at the time of adoption of the title 5 pay cap, that
action did not have any impact on their compensation. Going forward, as
these employees receive pay adjustments, their total compensation will
continue to increase up to the GS-15, Step 10 premium pay cap for their
locality pay area. Once an employee approaches the GS-15, Step 10,
premium pay cap, as they receive future pay increases, the LEAP
percentage will decrease until LEAP becomes zero. Once the basic pay
reaches the cap and the employee is no longer receiving LEAP, they are
eligible to earn a salary above the GS-15, Step 10 premium pay cap for
their locality area subject to the same limits as their non-LEO
counterparts in TSA. The August 9, 2017 change was put in place in
order to limit the negative impact to employees, due to existing
policies and lack of authorities described below.
The following example illustrates how the salary of a J band 1811
Criminal Investigator based in Washington, DC (locality pay of 28.22
percent) will increase over time:
An employee will receive a diminished LEAP percentage so
that the payment of LEAP does not cause the total of basic pay
plus LEAP to exceed the GS-15, Step 10 premium pay cap.
As the employee receives pay adjustments their basic pay
will increase and the LEAP percentage will decrease until it
becomes zero.
Once the employee is no longer receiving LEAP, they are eligible to
earn a salary above the GS-15, Step 10 pay cap as their non-LEO
counterparts in TSA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current
Basic Pay Basic Pay Percent Salary + GS-15,
Pay Band Pay Adjustment * + of LEAP LEAP Step 10
Locality Received Pay Cap
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J................................. N/A.................. $102,000 $130,784 25 $163,480 $164,200
J................................. 6.................... $108,120 $138,631 18.4439 $164,200 $164,200
J................................. 5.................... $113,526 $145,563 12.8034 $164,200 $164,200
J................................. 2.5.................. $116,364 $149,202 10.0521 $164,200 $164,200
K................................. Promotion 6.......... $123,364 $158,154 3.8227 $164,000 $164,200
K................................. 4.................... $128,280 $164,481 0 $164,481 $164,200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The TSA 2018 minimum basic pay for a J band is $75,302 and the maximum is $116,714. The TSA 2018 minimum basic
pay for a K band is $90,018 and the maximum is $138,151.
The August 9, 2017, adoption of the title 5 premium pay cap did not
impact those employees whose basic salary and LEAP exceeded the GS-15,
Step 10 premium pay cap for their locality pay area on August 9, 2017.
This group of employees was specifically exempted from the application
of the title 5 premium pay cap. As these employees receive pay
adjustments their total compensation will continue to increase.
The calculation of retirement benefits is subject to the Office of
Personnel Management's (OPM) interpretation of its authority. OPM has
made a determination, based on 5 U.S.C. 8331(3)(E)(ii), that it lacks
the authority to include as part of basic pay any amount of LEAP for
any Federal Air Marshal exceeding the title 5 premium pay cap.
Additionally, in the absence of legislation explicitly authorizing OPM
to credit LEAP toward 1811 Criminal Investigator retirement, OPM has
made a determination, based on 5 U.S.C. 8331(3)(E)(i), that it is not
authorized to credit any amount of LEAP (including that earned below
the title 5 premium pay cap) for retirement purposes for 1811 Criminal
Investigators who receive LEAP under the TSA personnel authority.
Implementation of the title 5 GS-15, Step 10 premium pay cap for
employees earning LEAP, does not subject any employee to an immediate
pay cut.
TSA has offered proposed legislation that, for retroactive periods
prior to the date of enactment, will specifically authorize OPM to
credit as part of basic pay, all amounts of LEAP earned by criminal
investigators, and any amount of LEAP earned in excess of the title 5
premium pay cap by 1811 Criminal Investigators and Federal Air
Marshals. Under the proposed legislation, all TSA LEAP recipients would
be subject to the title 5 premium pay caps in determining the amount of
retirement-creditable LEAP going forward. The legislation would also
provide that TSA Federal Air Marshals and 1811 criminal investigators
receiving retirement-creditable LEAP would be exempt under the overtime
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, consistent with the
treatment of criminal investigators receiving LEAP under title 5.
Question 4d. Please describe TSA's efforts to work with the Office
of Personnel Management to cease debt collection efforts against
retired TSA criminal investigators.
Answer. TSA has been working with the Department's chief human
capital officer and OPM since 2014 to resolve the issues related to the
calculation of retirement benefits for TSA's Federal Air Marshals and
1811 Criminal Investigators. In October 2016, OPM agreed to temporarily
hold any actions to recalculate retirement benefits for 1811 Criminal
Investigator annuitants that have already had LEAP included as part of
basic pay, or Federal Air Marshals who earned over the title 5 pay cap,
while the respective agencies seek legislative resolution of the
issues.
Since enacting the hold on actions to recalculate annuities for
retirees, TSA has learned of approximately 4 or 5 retired 1811 Criminal
Investigators who have received debt notifications from OPM. TSA has
advised law enforcement retirees that if they receive notification from
OPM about a reassignment of their benefits that they should follow the
instructions and deadline for seeking reconsideration set forth in the
letter, and requested that they advise TSA of the actions so that TSA
can track the progress. For law enforcement retirees who give
permission, TSA will request OPM to place their debt on hold until a
determination about the legislation is made.
While awaiting resolution of these issues, OPM is applying the GS-
15, Step 10 premium pay cap in determining the amount of retirement-
creditable LEAP used in calculating the retirement annuity for Federal
Air Marshals. These annuitants are receiving a reduced annuity even
though they paid retirement contributions on their salary above the GS-
15, Step 10 premium pay cap. When OPM processes new retirement
applications for TSA 1811 Criminal Investigators, LEAP is excluded in
its entirety from basic pay. As a result, these 1811 Criminal
Investigator annuitants are receiving significantly reduced annuities
even though they paid retirement contributions commensurate with the
LEAP they earned. In the absence of legislation to address the matter,
OPM will refund excess retirement contributions.
Question From Honorable William R. Keating for David P. Pekoske
Question. If there were no budget constraints, how quickly could
TSA deploy Computed Tomography machines, and what would TSA's plan be
for deploying those machines?
Answer. TSA currently plans to deploy more than 30 Computed
Tomography (CT) machines to the field this summer for testing. Once
testing is complete, TSA estimates that it will deploy qualified CTs in
early 2019. The fiscal year 2019 President's budget includes funding
for approximately 145 CTs. Under an unconstrained budget, the time line
for deployment of CT machines would depend on the following factor and
assumptions:
At least one proposed CT system meets requirements and TSA
receives a successful Acquisition Decision Event that approves
moving forward with full rate production and deployment;
No delay to the CT procurement and deployment schedule due
to bid protest litigation;
The ability and timeliness of the Original Equipment
Manufacturer to manufacture and deliver CT systems and provide
the resources to support multiple deployment teams to meet the
schedule; and
Stakeholder support in executing the aggressive schedule,
such as help streamlining necessary permitting requirements to
allow changes to airport infrastructure.
Once the testing is complete in fiscal year 2018, TSA will better
be able to detail plans for deploying CTs under an unconstrained budget
environment.
Questions From Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson for Jeffrey David Cox
Question 1. How would you characterize AFGE's engagement with TSA
since Administrator Pekoske started last year?
Answer. AFGE's engagement with TSA Administrator Pekoske has been
quite limited. Since last August, I have met with Administrator Pekoske
and spoken by phone with him once. The administrator recently scheduled
a June meeting with the representatives of AFGE TSA Council 100,
elected by Council 100 membership earlier this month.
Question 2. Do you believe TSA leadership and management engages
effectively with the workforce?
Answer. No, TSA leadership and management does not engage
effectively with the workforce. Almost 17 years since the agency's
creation in 2001, TSA leadership and management policies and practices
strongly discourage workforce participation. In 2018, TSA canceled
quarterly management meetings, the National Advisory Council, and the
Diversity Advisory Council. Labor Management Relations meetings that
previously took place over 1 week have shrunk to 2 days. Although TSA
has stated that agency management at individual airports could hold the
meetings there was no directive to do so. As a result, many Federal
Security Directors and Assistant Federal Security Directors have not
held these meetings. The Councils' and quarterly management meetings
allowed TSA management and AFGE opportunities to discuss and address
personnel issues. AFGE's membership reports that TSA's random ``town
hall'' meetings at airports have been invitation-only, excluding union
representatives, and disproportionately comprised of managers and other
employees outside of the AFGE bargaining unit. TSA has effectively
ended forums available for the exclusive representative of the largest
and most critical workforce at the agency to address workplace issues
through their exclusive representative.
Questions From Honorable William R. Keating for Jeffrey David Cox
Question 1a. As you are aware, some airports have chosen to
privatize the workforce at their security checkpoints by applying to
TSA's Screening Partnership Program, and other airports are considering
whether to apply.
What effects has privatization had on officers at airports that
have chosen to transition from Federal to private workforce?
Answer. As reported to AFGE, TSOs who transition from Federal to
private workforce have a lot to lose under the Screening Partnership
Program (SPP). As an employee of a private security contractor, former
TSOs are unlikely to be represented by a union and become at-will
employees who can be fired without appeal rights. Pay raises are meager
and inconsistent, and TSOs with less than 5 years with the Federal
Government lose their pensions and may lose their future retirement
benefits. Former TSOs are no longer eligible for FEHB benefits and will
pay more out-of-pocket for their health care costs. Working for a
private security contractor is not a good job.
Question 1b. How do threats to privatize affect workforce morale?
Answer. I have witnessed AFGE's TSO members as they try to remain
focused on their jobs while concerned about the likely deterioration of
security and the economic well-being of their families if screening is
privatized. SPP applications sometimes follow months or years of
insults and negative statements by members of airport boards. Rumors
abound among the TSA workforce, and at times, TSA airport management
erroneously tells TSOs there is nothing they or their union can do to
stop the inevitability of privatization. Some TSOs must consider
whether to uproot their families and apply to transfer to another
airport even though they are not guaranteed the same job with TSA. The
other options left for TSOs under SPP are to apply for a worse job with
the private security contractor or quit. TSOs already remain focused on
security despite the lack of statutory civil service workforce rights
and protections denied by TSA, overwork due to chronic understaffing,
and low pay. The additional concern of possible job loss due to no
fault of the workforce is a heavy burden for TSOs to bear.