[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
PROTECTING THE PROTECTORS: EXAMINING THE PERSONNEL CHALLENGES FACING
THE FEDERAL AIR MARSHAL SERVICE
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MANAGEMENT,
INVESTIGATIONS, AND OVERSIGHT
of the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 23, 2009
__________
Serial No. 111-31
__________
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.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
56-528 PDF WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi, Chairman
LORETTA SANCHEZ, California PETER T. KING, New York
JANE HARMAN, California LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
Columbia MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
ZOE LOFGREN, California MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas
SHEILA JACKSON EE, Texas CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York CANDICE S. MILLER, Mississippi
LAURA RICHARDSON, California PETE OLSON, Texas
ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona ANH ``JOSEPH'' CAO, Louisiana
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico STEVE AUSTRIA, Ohio
BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey
EMMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri
AL GREEN, Texas
JAMES A. HIMES, Connecticut
MARY JO KILROY, Ohio
ERIE J.J. MASSA, New York
DINA TITUS, Nevada
VACANCY
I. Lanier Avant, Staff Director
Rosaline Cohen, Chief Counsel
Michael Twinchek, Chief Clerk
Robert O'Conner, Minority Staff Director
______
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MANAGEMENT, INVESTIGATIONS, AND OVERSIGHT
CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania, Chairman
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
BILL PASCRELL, Jr, New Jersey ANH ``JOSEPH'' CAO, Louisiana
AL GREEN, Texas DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
MARY JO KILROY, Ohio PETER T. KING, New York, (ex
BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi, officio)
(ex officio)
Tamla T. Scott, Staff Director
Nikki Hadder, Clerk
Michael Russell, Senior Counsel
Kerry Kinirons, Minority Subcommittee Lead
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
STATEMENTS
The Honorable Christopher P. Carney, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Pennsylvania, and Chairman, Subcommittee on
Management, Investigations, and Oversight...................... 1
The Honorable Gus M. Bilirakis, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Florida, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Management, Investigations, and Oversight...................... 2
The Honorable Charles W. Dent, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Pennsylvania...................................... 22
The Honorable Al Green, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas................................................. 24
The Honorable Mary Jo Kilroy, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Ohio.............................................. 33
The Honorable Bill Pascrell, Jr., a Representative in Congress
from the State of New Jersey................................... 21
WITNESSES
Mr. Jon Adler, National President, Federal Law Enforcement
Officers Association:
Oral Statement................................................. 14
Prepared Statement............................................. 16
Mr. Robert Bray, Assistant Administrator/Director, Office of Law
Enforcement/Federal Air Marshal Service:
Oral Statement................................................. 4
Prepared Statement............................................. 6
Mr. Stephen Lord, Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues,
Government Accountability Office:
Oral Statement................................................. 7
Prepared Statement............................................. 9
FOR THE RECORD
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Mississippi, and Chairman, Committee on
Homeland Security:
Prepared Statement............................................. 42
PROTECTING THE PROTECTORS: EXAMINING THE PERSONNEL CHALLENGES FACING
THE FEDERAL AIR MARSHAL SERVICE
----------
Thursday, July 23, 2009
U.S. House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Management, Investigations,
and Oversight,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:12 a.m., in
Room 311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Christopher Carney
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Carney, Pascrell, Green, Kilroy,
and Bilirakis.
Also present: Representative Dent.
Mr. Carney. [Presiding.] The Subcommittee on Management,
Investigations, and Oversight will come to order.
The subcommittee is meeting today to receive testimony on
protecting the protectors, examining the personnel challenges
facing the Federal Air Marshal Service.
And before I give my opening comments, I do want to
acknowledge that Mr. Adler is not with us at the current time.
He will be here shortly. There was a clerical error in a
letter, an invitation letter, that had the wrong time. You guys
are here at the intended time. To no fault of Mr. Adler's, he
will be here as soon as he can. We are going to get started
then.
All right. The purpose of this hearing is to examine
personnel and workforce issues within the Federal Air Marshal
Service, or the FAMs. And before I go any further, I want to
point out that, in 2008, 37 percent of all new hires of the
Federal Air Marshal Service were veterans. I would like to
commend you for this accomplishment.
As a veteran myself, I am glad to see you value the skills
of our men and women in uniform. I would encourage you to
continue seeking qualified air marshals from their ranks.
Federal air marshals are deployed on domestic and
international flights to protect passengers and crew from harm.
In the past, the FAM organization has struggled with numerous
personnel issues that have impacted morale and caused the
agency public embarrassment.
Recently, it appears, improvements have been made. And that
said, I am interested in learning about what has been done to
overcome past challenges. Also, I am particularly interested in
hearing your thoughts as to whether or not there is room for
further improvement.
I know that members have questions on a number of topics
today, including polices aimed at improving air marshal
anonymity, steps that have been put in place to foster better
communication between line-level air marshals and management,
and the need to implement consistent guidance on disciplinary
actions that the entire FAMS, including field officers, are to
follow.
Lastly, on July 9, 2009, the full committee marked up and
approved H.R. 1881, the Transportation Security Workforce
Enhancement Act of 2009. This bill will bring all TSA
employees, including air marshals, under Title 5 of the U.S.
code.
What that means is that their pay structure will eventually
be the same as General Service, or G.S., and the G.S. structure
that exists in other federal agencies. And I will be interested
in hearing how this legislation brings more fairness and equity
into the FAMs system.
I thank the witnesses for their participation in today's
hearing, and I look forward to hearing Mr. Bray, Mr. Lord, and
Mr. Adler.
I now turn it over to my ranking member, Mr. Bilirakis.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it
very much.
I would like to welcome our witnesses here today. I am
pleased the subcommittee is meeting to consider personnel
issues at the Federal Air Marshal Service. Air marshals provide
a vital layer of defense in our transportation security amid
challenging circumstances.
I appreciated the opportunity to meet with both Director
Bray and Mr. Adler last week. And I am impressed with the
efforts taken by the Federal Air Marshal Service to address
employee concerns and further enhance security.
I think many of the initiatives instituted by the Federal
Air Marshal Service, such as the listening sessions and the Web
site for anonymous employee feedback, should be considered as
best practices for other Department of Homeland Security
components.
I look forward to our witnesses' testimony today. I am
specifically interested in hearing about the initiatives that
FAMS plans to implement in fiscal year 2010 to further enhance
the service.
I would also like to hear our witnesses' thoughts on
providing criminal investigative training to air marshals. I
believe that providing this training, which used to be provided
to air marshals prior to September 11th to the attacks, will
have the dual effect of enhancing both the skills and morale of
air marshals.
That is why I supported Congressman Lungren's amendment to
the Transportation Security Authorization Act that would have
required this training for all air marshals and provided
funding for the FAMs in fiscal years 2010 and 2011 to implement
the requirements.
I was disappointed that this important amendment was
defeated on a party-line vote. I hope our witnesses can
convince my Democratic colleagues of the importance of this
training and we can work together to authorize it.
And I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. Carney. Thank you. Okay, since the full committee
chairman is not here, I will move on.
Other members of this subcommittee are reminded that, under
committee rules, opening statements may be submitted for the
record.
I welcome our witnesses. Our first witness is Director
Robert S. Bray. Mr. Bray became TSA's assistant administrator
for law enforcement and director of the Federal Air Marshal
Service in June of 2008. He began his career with the Federal
Air Marshal Service on May 5, 2003, as the assistant special
agent in charge of the mission operations center at the FAA
Technical Center in Atlantic City, New Jersey.
In November of 2003, Mr. Bray was appointed as the deputy
assistant director for the Office of Training and Development
and subsequently selected as the assistant director, Office of
Security Services and Assessments, in March of 2006.
During his 20-year career with the United States Secret
Service, he was assigned to offices in Denver, Colorado, Palm
Springs, California, Tulsa, Oklahoma, and Washington, D.C. Mr.
Bray served as supervisor of the Vice Presidential Protective
Division under Vice President Gore and as a supervisor on the
Presidential Protective Division under President Clinton and
President Bush.
Mr. Bray, as a special agent in charge of the Office of
Administration, United States Secret Service, supervised the
development and execution of the annual budget for the Secret
Service. Mr. Bray began his law enforcement career as a police
officer for the metro Dade police department in Miami, Florida.
He then worked as a police agent for the Lakewood, Colorado,
police department prior to his appointment to the United States
Secret Service. He holds a bachelor's of science degree in
criminology from Florida State University.
Our second witness is Mr. Stephen Lord, a director in the
Government Accountability Office, homeland security and justice
team. Mr. Lord is responsible for directing numerous GAO
engagements on aviation and surface transportation issues.
In September of 2008, while completing GAO's executive
development program, Mr. Lord testified before a House homeland
security subcommittee on TSA's progress in introducing the TWIC
biometric identification card in the maritime sector.
In March 2009, he also testified before a House homeland
security subcommittee on TSA's progress and challenges in
meeting the statutory mandate for screening air cargo on
passenger aircraft.
Before his appointment to the SES, he led GAO's work on
Iraq reconstruction and was a key member of a 2007 Iraq
benchmarks assessment team and received a GAO integrity award
for exceptional analysis of the Iraq governance progress and
meeting 18 legislative, security and economic benchmarks.
Mr. Lord is a recipient of multiple GAO awards for
meritorious service, outstanding achievement, and teamwork. He
holds a B.A. in foreign affairs from the University of Virginia
and MBA from George Mason University and an M.S. in national
security studies from the National War College. He also
completed his senior executive fellows program at Harvard
University's John F. Kennedy School of Government in May 2008.
Our third and final witness is Mr. Jon Adler.
And, Mr. Adler, thank you for being here. We had a mix up
with the letters, the wrong time. The invitation letter
actually had the wrong starting time on it that went out. I
appreciate you coming and making it here. So thank you so much
for being here.
Mr. Adler is the national president of the Federal Law
Enforcement Officers Association. Mr. Adler began his law
enforcement career as a revenue officer in 1991 and became a
special agent with the IRS criminal investigation division
shortly thereafter.
He has spent most of his career in the southern district of
New York working a variety of criminal investigations. At the
end of 1999, he was selected as a resident lead instructor for
use-of-force training at the Federal Law Enforcement Training
Center.
After serving as an acting use-of-force program manager,
Mr. Adler joined the United States attorney's office in the
southern division of New York as a criminal investigator. He is
presently assigned to the major crimes unit.
Mr. Adler has been an active member of FLEOA for over 14
years and also a member of the International Law Enforcement
Educators and Trainers Association. Prior to his election as
the national president, Mr. Adler served as FLEOA's national
board as executive vice president, first vice president, and
secretary.
Jon also served as an officer in the Glyrico chapter, as
well as the agency president for the United States attorney's
office members. In addition to his investigative duties, Mr.
Adler continues to serve as the use-of-force coordinator for
the U.S. attorney's office criminal investigators in the
southern division of New York.
And without objection, the full witnesses--the witnesses'
full statements will be inserted into the record.
And I now ask each witness to summarize.
Mr. Bilirakis. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Carney. Yes? Yes, Mr. Bilirakis?
Mr. Bilirakis. Mr. Chairman, yes. I would like to ask
unanimous consent for Congressman Dent, ranking member of the
Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection
Subcommittee, to join us to question the witnesses today.
Mr. Carney. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you.
Mr. Carney. Mr. Bray, if you would like to start, please.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT BRAY, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL
AIR MARSHAL SERVICE, TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Bray. Thank you.
Good morning, Chairman Carney, Representative Bilirakis,
and distinguished members of the subcommittee. I am privileged
to appear before you today to discuss the role of the Federal
Air Marshal Service, FAMS, within TSA and DHS.
I would like to thank the subcommittee for this
opportunity. I appreciate your support and the support of the
full committee, and I look forward to continuing our
partnership in the future.
No one who remembers 9/11 disputes the importance of our
mission. Mr. Chairman, we can only accomplish this mission
because of the outstanding men and women of the Federal Air
Marshal Service. The stand-up of the FAMS was an unprecedented
undertaking. The Federal Air Marshal Service grew from 33
people under the FAA to a full-fledged federal law enforcement
organization at TSA, with thousands of men and women deployed
now as we speak on flights across the United States and around
the world.
We have come a long way in a few short years, and we are
fully committed to further progress. The millions of passengers
who fly safely each year benefit from the robust flight
coverage that FAMS provide.
FAMS provide this flight coverage on a 24/7 basis. In
addition to active participation, an FBI-led joint terrorism
task force and detail assignments at the National
Counterterrorism Center, federal air marshals are also part of
visible intermodal prevention and response teams, a TSA program
specifically authorized by the 9/11 Commission Act.
VIPR teams move around in any part of the transportation
sector and show up without being announced. They are a good
example of security activity that brings together assets from a
variety of states, local and federal entities and coordinate
action to protect the homeland.
I would like to thank--I would like to especially
acknowledge the support of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers
Association, which is helping us build the FAMS organization
for the future. Without the support of FLEOA, we could not be
this successful organization we are today.
We are now in a maturation period for FAMS. And my goal is
to work with all employees to continue to build the
institutions, create a more open, inclusive, and responsive
organization, and continue the blueprint for the future.
As part of that process, we have developed 36 working
groups representing personnel in all workforce categories. All
employees have great ideas on a myriad of issues, including
quality of life, mission scheduling, performance and personnel
standards, voluntary lateral transfers, and medical issues.
The contributions of these 300 field and non-headquarters
personnel have led to major policy changes and significantly
improved the quality of life for our workforce. I am very proud
of their work.
The progress we have made is validated by the GAO's recent
report. The GAO recognized the FAMS operational approach to
achieving our core mission and our positive actions to address
issues affecting our workforce. I believe we are succeeding in
changing our culture for the better for our workforce.
The feedback I receive from the FAMs I speak with in
listening sessions, working groups, our FAM adviser council,
and in the many meals I have shared with transiting FAMS
provides the best validation of our program.
Mr. Chairman, any organization is only as good as its
people. The men and women of the FAMS are our most valuable
asset. I am committed to continuing to seek out the views of
our people at all levels. Their involvement is critical to
helping us achieve our goals and sustain our forward progress.
I would like to reiterate my desire to work with this
subcommittee as policy and personnel matters are discussed, and
I will be happy to respond to any questions you and the members
of the subcommittee may have.
Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Bray follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert Bray
Good morning Chairman Carney, Representative Bilirakas, and
distinguished members of the Subcommittee. It is my privilege to appear
before you today to discuss the recent progress in workforce issues of
the Federal Air Marshal Service (FAMS), within the Transportation
Security Administration (TSA), Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
I would like to thank the Subcommittee for this opportunity to
discuss the Federal Air Marshal Service. We look forward to continuing
our partnership on this and other issues in the coming year.
In the hectic days after 9/11, the FAMS was reorganized and grew
significantly. Standing up the FAMS--from the 33 marshals under the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to thousands under TSA--was an
unprecedented undertaking. We have come a long way since then in
maturing our organization, and we are committed to further progress.
The millions of people who fly safely each year are the beneficiaries
of the robust flight coverage that FAMS provides.
I was honored to be named as Director of the Federal Air Marshal
Service just over one year ago. Today's Federal Air Marshal Service is
a full-fledged Federal law enforcement organization with men and women
deployed throughout the United States and on U.S.-flagged commercial
air carriers throughout the world. The FAMS have state-of-the-art
training facilities to provide an intense training experience for our
air marshals. In addition, the FAMS is a vital partner with other TSA
offices and local law enforcement agencies in the Visible Intermodal
Prevention and Response (VIPR) program, which was specifically
authorized by the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission
Act.
The FAMs that participate in TSA's VIPR Team activities are a key
part of TSA's strategy to help prevent a terrorist attack, similar to
the attacks on mass transit in Madrid and London, through risk-based,
targeted deployment of integrated TSA assets in coordination with
Federal, State and local officials. Recent partner and public feed-back
has been positive regarding the VIPR program's effect on promoting
public confidence in the transportation system and improving security
across all U.S. modes of transportation. VIPR Teams are deployed
throughout the United States hundreds of times each year across
multiple transportation modes, and we expect to more than double the
number of operational VIPR teams in the coming years.
The FAMS daily mission is an inherently difficult one. Federal Air
Marshals frequently fly long-haul domestic and international routes,
constantly experiencing the consequences of consistently changing duty
hours and frequent adjustments to circadian rhythms. This, along with
uncontrollable flight delays, impacts the FAMs' quality of life and
ultimately, what it means to be a Federal Air Marshal.
We can meet these workforce challenges and still perform at a high
caliber. FAMS has improved its operating procedures to better retain
Federal Air Marshals, and at the same time has enhanced TSA's ability
to respond to emergent situations around the world. For example, in the
aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the FAMS moved in to secure the airport
in New Orleans and was instrumental in evacuating hundreds of victims.
Or, as another example, in response to the discovery in the United
Kingdom of a plot to use liquid explosives to take down passenger
aircraft bound for the United States, the FAMS, in coordination with
other TSA units, responded with unprecedented speed to conduct a range
of new missions to combat the threat and help instill confidence in the
security of commercial aviation.
In order to continue to support our air marshals in a stressful and
ever-evolving workplace environment, we have committed to fostering an
open and responsive environment for our employees, and to providing
them with the best possible tools and communication channels. The FAMS
has assembled employee working groups, increased human resource (HR)
efficiencies, and enhanced career advancement opportunities.
Our employee working groups have been particularly successful.
These groups, made up of personnel in all workforce categories
throughout the FAMS organization, were asked to evaluate concerns and
propose solutions on a myriad of issues including quality of life,
mission scheduling, performance and on-duty personal appearance
guidelines, use of hotels while on mission status, voluntary lateral
transfers, and medical issues. To date, the contribution of these 36
working groups and approximately 300 field and non-headquarters
personnel have led to some very positive policy changes. For example,
to address mission scheduling issues, we have improved scheduling
consistency, instituted more consistent start times, limited the number
of flight days per roster period, and increased rest following extended
international missions. To address some of the performance and quality
of life issues, we have eliminated the dress code policy, allowed for
hotel self-selection, and created the FAMS Voluntary Lateral Transfer
Program, which has allowed 200 FAMs to voluntarily transfer to the
field office of their choosing. In the medical arena, we are developing
a proposal to conduct large scale research on the implications of FAM
scheduling practices on fatigue, mental acuity, and risk for sleep
disorders. The study will include a wellness education component along
with the development of a risk assessment tool to identify personnel at
risk for sleep disorders. These changes have significantly improved the
quality of life for our workforce and their families.
Our efforts have been validated by the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) in a recent report (GAO-09-273). In particular, the GAO
recognized the successful FAMS operational approach to achieving its
core mission and the positive actions taken to address policies and
practices in its workforce. As part of its research, GAO visited 11
field offices, interviewed large numbers of rank-and-file FAMS
employees, and conducted a comprehensive review of all operations and
administrative services over the course of 20 months. The GAO's
findings were encouraging. In addition, more anecdotally but
nevertheless encouragingly, the feedback I have personally received
from Air Marshals in listening sessions, working groups, our FAM
Advisory Council and even via our anonymous mailbox all confirms that
our organization has made progress in boosting employee morale. I
believe we are succeeding in improving the culture for our workforce.
TSA has implemented a new human resources service provider to
promote more efficient and streamlined business practices.
Specifically, all recruitment, hiring and staffing, personnel and
payroll processing, employee benefits, and personnel-related help desk
functions are now administered by TSA's Office of Human Capital.
Previously, these human resource functions were administered through a
separate staff within TSA's Office of Law Enforcement in conjunction
with a private contractor. In an effort to further enhance workforce
satisfaction, the FAMS has also established a successful internal
promotion process to select the best and brightest candidates for J-
band (supervisory) Federal Air Marshal career opportunities. We also
encourage qualified Transportation Security Officers and TSA Security
Inspectors to apply for FAMS positions, and I am pleased that a number
of them have been selected to join the FAMS ranks.
The men and women of the FAMS are our most valuable asset. I am
committed to continuing to seek out the views of our employees at all
levels. Their direct and candid involvement is critical to help us
achieve our goals and objectives to detect, deter and defeat terrorism.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for scheduling this hearing and for
the opportunity to testify. I would like to reiterate my desire to work
with this Subcommittee as policy and personnel matters are discussed,
and I will be happy to respond to any questions you and the members of
the Subcommittee may have.
Mr. Carney. Thank you, Mr. Bray.
I now recognize Mr. Lord to summarize his statement for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF STEPHEN LORD, DIRECTOR, HOMELAND SECURITY AND
JUSTICE ISSUES, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Mr. Lord. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank
you for inviting me here today to this important hearing on the
Federal Air Marshal Service, or FAMS. My statement highlights
the findings of our January 2009 report with some selective
updates. I would now like to discuss some of the key points.
First, our January 2009 report discussed FAMS's operational
approach, its so-called concept of operations for deploying air
marshals on flights considered higher risk. Since it is not
feasible for FAMS to cover the almost 29,000 daily flights
operated by U.S. airlines, FAMS uses a risk-based approach for
assigning air marshals to higher-risk flights.
And these flights include those in and out of the National
Capital Region and nonstop long-distance flights, such as those
targeted by the 9/11 hijackers.
It is important to note that federal air marshals also have
ground-based responsibilities. For example, they participate in
the so-called VIPR teams, visible intermodal prevention and
response teams, that provide ground-based security. In the
first quarter of this fiscal year, about 40 percent of these
VIPR deployments were conducted in non-aviation areas, such as
mass transit and maritime facilities.
Second, we found that FAMS's previous director undertook a
number of efforts to address workforce-related issues, and
these improvement efforts produced some positive results. For
example, to help ensure anonymity of its air marshals, FAMS
amended its check-in boarding procedures.
To help address health concerns, FAMS now allows more
flexibility in scheduling work dates and rest breaks. And to
help improve workforce quality of life, FAMS implemented a
lateral transfer program.
Third, FAMS's plans to conduct a workforce survey every 2
years, building on the survey that it conducted in 2007. We
reviewed the results of the survey and found that a majority of
respondents indicated there had been positive changes
undertaken from their prior year.
However, the overall response rate was 46 percent. This is
substantially less than the 80 percent response rate encouraged
by the Office of Management and Budget in its federal survey.
Our report also found that the potential usefulness of
future surveys could be enhances by ensuring that the survey
questions and the answer options are clear and unambiguous. In
a few cases, they combine multiple questions into a single
survey question, making it difficult to answer it clear.
Today's hearing is an opportunity to clarify FAMS's plans
for conducting an additional workforce survey. Will it be this
year or later? And what steps will FAMS take to ensure a higher
response rate?
Finally, it is clear that FAMS has made progress in
addressing various operational and quality-of-life issues that
affect the ability of its air marshals to perform their
mission. In addition, Mr. Bray has expressed a commitment to
continue these improvement efforts.
However, today's hearing also provides an opportunity to
discuss other related oversight issues related to FAMS. First,
how can FAMS strike the proper balance between meeting its in-
flight responsibilities and supporting new ground-based
responsibilities, such as VIPR?
And, second, how do you really measure FAMS's success? What
performance measure is being used to gauge their effectiveness?
Because to be most effective, as you know, FAMS operate--they
are largely invisible to the flying public.
And, third, what is the best way to balance operational
needs with a healthy work-life balance? You have to consider
both factors when assessing these improvements initiatives.
And, Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I look
forward to any questions that you or any other members of the
committee may have.
Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Lord follows:]
Prepared Statement of Steve Lord
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss the Federal Air Marshal
Service (FAMS), which has a core mission of deploying trained and armed
federal air marshals to provide an onboard security presence on
selected flights operated by U.S. commercial passenger air carriers.
The agency's cadre of air marshals grew significantly in response to
the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 (9/11), and pursuant to the
Aviation and Transportation Security Act.\1\ Nonetheless, as noted in
our January 2009 report,\2\ because the total number of air marshals is
less than the approximately 29,000 domestic and international flights
operated daily by U.S. commercial passenger air carriers,\3\ FAMS
routinely must determine which flights are to be provided an onboard
security presence. To facilitate making these decisions, FAMS developed
an operational approach--commonly referred to as the agency's concept
of operations--for deploying air marshals on selected flights. As
further noted in our January 2009 report, FAMS also faces challenges in
addressing various operational and quality-of-life issues that affect
the ability of air marshals to carry out the agency's mission. Such
issues range, for example, from maintaining anonymity during aircraft
boarding procedures to mitigating the various health concerns
associated with frequent flying.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Pub. L. No. 107-71, Sec. 105, 115 Stat. 597, 606-08 (2001)
(codified as amended at 49 U.S.C. Sec. 44917).
\2\ GAO, Aviation Security: Federal Air Marshal Service Has Taken
Actions to Fulfill Its Core Mission and Address Workforce Issues, but
Additional Actions Are Needed to Improve Workforce Survey, GAO-09-273
(Washington, DC.: Jan. 14, 2009).
\3\ The specific number of federal air marshals is classified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With selected updates as of July 2009, this statement summarizes
information presented in our January 2009 report, which addressed the
following questions:
What is FAMS's operational approach for achieving its
core mission of providing an onboard security presence for
flights operated by U.S. commercial passenger air carriers?
To what extent has FAMS's operational approach for
achieving its core mission been independently assessed?
To what extent does FAMS have processes and
initiatives in place to address issues that affect the ability
of its workforce to carry out its mission?
Also, as you further requested, this statement presents information
on possible oversight issues related to FAMS.
To address the questions, we reviewed (1) relevant legislation
regarding FAMS's mission, (2) the agency's policies and other
documentation regarding the strategy and concept of operations for
carrying out that mission, (3) a July 2006 classified report prepared
by the Homeland Security Institute based on its independent evaluation
of FAMS's concept of operations,\4\ and (4) documentation regarding
various working groups and other initiatives that FAMS had established
to address issues that affect the ability of air marshals to carry out
the agency's mission. Also, we interviewed FAMS headquarters officials
and visited 11 of the agency's 21 field offices, where we interviewed
managers and a total of 67 air marshals. We selected the 11 field
offices and the 67 air marshals based on nonprobability sampling, which
is a method of sampling where observations are selected in a manner
that is not completely random, generally using specific characteristics
of the population as criteria. Results from a nonprobability sample
cannot be used to make inferences about an entire population because
some elements of the population being studied had no chance or an
unknown chance of being selected as part of the sample. However, the
interviews provided a broad overview of issues important to air
marshals. More details about the scope and methodology of our work to
address the questions are presented in appendix I of our January 2009
report.\5\ In conducting work in July 2009 for this statement, we
requested updated information from the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA), contacted the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) Office of Inspector General to discuss its FAMS-related audits or
inspections, and (3) reviewed FAMS budget data for fiscal years 2009
and 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The Homeland Security Institute is a federally funded research
and development center established pursuant to the Homeland Security
Act of 2002. See Pub. L. No. 107-296, Sec. 312, 116 Stat. 2135, 2176,
as amended. The institute's mission is to assist the Department of
Homeland Security in addressing relevant issues requiring scientific,
technical, and analytical expertise. In March 2009, the institute's
name was changed to Homeland Security studies and analysis Institute
(with a logo expressed as HSsaI). In this testimony, we use the former
name, which was applicable at the time of our review of FAMS.
\5\ See GAO-09-273.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We conducted the work for this statement in July 2009 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards
require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient,
appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence
obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions
based on our audit objectives.
Background
FAMS was originally established as the Sky Marshal program in the
1970s to counter hijackers. In response to 9/11, the Aviation and
Transportation Security Act expanded FAMS's mission and workforce and
mandated the deployment of federal air marshals on high-security risk
flights. Within the 10-month period immediately following 9/11, the
number of air marshals grew significantly. Also, during subsequent
years, FAMS underwent various organizational transfers. Initially, FAMS
was transferred within the Department of Transportation from the
Federal Aviation Administration to the newly created TSA. In March
2003, FAMS moved, along with TSA, to the newly established DHS. In
November 2003, FAMS was transferred to U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE). Then, about 2 years later, FAMS was transferred back
to TSA in the fall of 2005.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The transfer of FAMS to ICE was based partly on the assumptions
that (1) air marshals would be afforded a broader career path by cross-
training with ICE's investigative division and (2) ICE's special agents
could provide a surge capability by serving as supplemental air
marshals, if needed. See GAO, Aviation Security: Federal Air Marshal
Service Is Addressing Challenges of Its Expanded Mission and Workforce,
but Additional Actions Needed, GAO-04-242 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 19,
2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAMS deploys thousands of federal air marshals to a significant
number of daily domestic and international flights. In carrying out
this core mission of FAMS, air marshals are deployed in teams to
various passenger flights.\7\ Such deployments are based on FAMS's
concept of operations, which guides the agency in its selection of
flights to cover. Once flights are selected for coverage, FAMS
officials stated that they must schedule air marshals based on their
availability,\8\ the logistics of getting individual air marshals in
position to make a flight, and applicable workday rules.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The specific number of air marshals assigned to an onboard
team, whether for a domestic flight or an international flight, may
vary depending on such factors as duration of the flight, the type of
aircraft, the departure and destination cities, and awareness of
specific threat information.
\8\ In determining air marshals' availability, FAMS officials
stated that they must consider such factors as training requirements,
other ground-based duties, and annual leave plans.
\9\ ``Workday rules'' refer to the parameters that FAMS uses for
assigning air marshals to flights. As applicable to nonovernight
missions, for example, FAMS tries to assign air marshals to flights (or
combinations of flights) that will return the air marshals home during
a scheduled 10-hour workday.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At times, air marshals may have ground-based assignments. On a
short-term basis, for example, air marshals participate in Visible
Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) teams, which provide security
nationwide for all modes of transportation. After the March 2004 train
bombings in Madrid, TSA created and deployed VIPR teams to enhance
security on U.S. rail and mass transit systems nationwide. Comprised of
TSA personnel that include federal air marshals--as well as
transportation security inspectors, transportation security officers,
behavioral detection officers, and explosives detection canines--the
VIPR teams are intended to work with local security and law enforcement
officials to supplement existing security resources, provide a
deterrent presence and detection capabilities, and introduce an element
of unpredictability to disrupt potential terrorist activities.
FAMS's budget request for fiscal year 2010 is $860.1 million, which
is an increase of $40.6 million (or about 5 percent) over the $819.5
million appropriated in fiscal year 2009. The majority of the agency's
budget provides for the salaries of federal air marshals and supports
maintenance of infrastructure that includes 21 field offices.
FAMS's Operational Approach to Achieving Its Core Mission Is Based on
Risk-Related Factors
FAMS's operational approach (concept of operations) for achieving
its core mission is based on assessments of risk-related factors, since
it is not feasible for federal air marshals to cover all of the
approximately 29,000 domestic and international flights operated daily
by U.S. commercial passenger air carriers. Specifically, FAMS considers
the following risk-related factors to help ensure that high-risk
flights operated by U.S. commercial carriers--such as the nonstop,
long-distance flights targeted on 9/11--are given priority coverage by
federal air marshals:\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Under this approach, FAMS categorizes each of the
approximately 29,000 daily flights into risk categories--high risk or
lower risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Threat (intelligence): Available strategic or tactical
information affecting aviation security is considered.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ FAMS considers ``threat'' and ``intelligence'' as separate
risk-related factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vulnerabilities: Although FAMS's specific definition
is designated sensitive security information, DHS defines
vulnerability as a physical feature or operational attribute
that renders an entity open to exploitation or susceptible to a
given hazard.
Consequences: FAMS recognizes that flight routes over
certain geographic locations involve more potential consequences than
other routes.
FAMS attempts to assign air marshals to provide an onboard security
presence on as many of the flights in the high-risk category as
possible.\12\ FAMS seeks to maximize coverage of high-risk flights by
establishing coverage goals for 10 targeted critical flight categories.
In order to reach these coverage goals, FAMS uses a scheduling process
to determine the most efficient flight combinations that will allow air
marshals to cover the desired flights. FAMS management officials
stressed that the overall coverage goals and the corresponding flight
schedules of air marshals are subject to modification at any time based
on changing threat information and intelligence. For example, in August
2006, FAMS increased its coverage of international flights in response
to the discovery, by authorities in the United Kingdom, of specific
terrorist threats directed at flights from Europe to the United States.
FAMS officials noted that a shift in resources of this type can have
consequences because of the limited number of air marshals. The
officials explained that international missions require more resources
than domestic missions partly because the trips are of longer duration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ FAMS's criteria for determining high-risk flights are
classified. In part, FAMS's determinations are guided by the provisions
of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act that specify the
deployment of federal air marshals on flights presenting high security
risks, such as the nonstop, long-distance flights targeted on 9/11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the core mission of providing an onboard security
presence on selected flights, FAMS also assigns air marshals to VIPR
teams on an as-needed basis to provide a ground-based security
presence. For the first quarter of fiscal year 2009, TSA reported
conducting 483 VIPR operations, with about 60 percent of these
dedicated to ground-based facilities of the aviation domain (including
air cargo, commercial aviation, and general aviation) and the remaining
VIPR operations dedicated to the surface domain (including highways,
freight rail, pipelines, mass transit, and maritime). TSA's budget for
fiscal year 2009 reflects support for 225 VIPR positions at a cost of
$30 million. TSA plans to significantly expand the VIPR program in
fiscal year 2010 by adding 15 teams consisting of 338 positions at a
cost of $50 million. However, questions have been raised about the
effectiveness of the VIPR program. In June 2008, for example, the DHS
Office of Inspector General reported that although TSA has made
progress in addressing problems with early VIPR deployments, it needs
to develop a more collaborative relationship with local transit
officials if VIPR exercises are to enhance mass transit security.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General,
TSA's Administration and Coordination of Mass Transit Security
Programs, OIG-08-66 (Washington, D.C.: June 12, 2008).
An Independent Assessment Concluded That FAMS's Approach for
Achieving Its Core Mission Was Reasonable; Recommendations for
Enhancing the Approach Are Being Implemented
After evaluating FAMS's operational approach for providing an
onboard security presence on high-risk flights, the Homeland Security
Institute, a federally funded research and development center, reported
in July 2006 that the approach was reasonable.\14\ In its report, the
Homeland Security Institute noted the following regarding FAMS's
overall approach to flight coverage:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Much of the specific information in the report is classified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAMS applies a structured, rigorous approach to
analyzing risk and allocating resources.
The approach is reasonable and valid.
No other organizations facing comparable risk-
management challenges apply notably better methodologies or
tools.
As part of its evaluation methodology, the Homeland Security
Institute examined the conceptual basis for FAMS's approach to risk
analysis. Also, the institute examined FAMS's scheduling processes and
analyzed outputs in the form of ``coverage'' data reflecting when and
where air marshals were deployed on flights. Further, the Homeland
Security Institute developed and used a model to study the implications
of alternative strategies for assigning resources. We reviewed the
institute's evaluation methodology and generally found it to be
reasonable.
Although the institute's July 2006 report concluded that FAMS's
operational approach was reasonable and valid, the report also noted
that certain types of flights were covered less often than others.
Accordingly, the institute made recommendations for enhancing the
operational approach. For example, the institute recommended that FAMS
increase randomness or unpredictability in selecting flights and
otherwise diversify the coverage of flights.
To address the Homeland Security Institute's recommendations, FAMS
officials stated that a broader approach for determining which flights
to cover has been implemented--an approach that opens up more flights
for potential coverage, provides more diversity and randomness in
flight coverage, and extends flight coverage to a variety of airports.
Our January 2009 report noted that FAMS had implemented or had ongoing
efforts to implement the institute's recommendations. We reported, for
example, that FAMS is developing an automated decision-support tool for
selecting flights and that this effort is expected to be completed by
December 2009.
FAMS Has Taken Positive Actions to Address Issues Affecting Its
Workforce and to Help Ensure Continued Progress
To better understand and address operational and quality-of-life
issues affecting the FAMS workforce, the agency's previous Director--
who served in that capacity from March 2006 to June 2008--established
various processes and initiatives. Chief among these were 36 issue-
specific working groups to address a variety of topics, such as
tactical policies and procedures, medical or health concerns,
recruitment and retention practices, and organizational culture. Each
working group typically included a special agent-in-charge, a subject
matter expert, air marshals, and mission support personnel from the
field and headquarters. According to FAMS management, the working
groups typically disband after submitting a final report, but
applicable groups could be reconvened or new groups established as
needed to address relevant issues. The previous Director also
established listening sessions that provided a forum for employees to
communicate directly with senior management and an internal Web site
for agency personnel to provide anonymous feedback to management.
Another initiative implemented was assigning an air marshal to the
position of Ombudsman in October 2006 to provide confidential,
informal, and neutral assistance to employees to address workplace-
related problems, issues, and concerns.
These efforts have produced some positive results. For example, as
noted in our January 2009 report, FAMS amended its policy for airport
check-in and flight boarding procedures (effective May 15, 2008) to
better ensure the anonymity of air marshals in mission status.\15\ In
addition, FAMS modified its mission scheduling processes and
implemented a voluntary lateral transfer program to address certain
issues regarding air marshals' quality of life--and has plans to
further address health issues associated with varying work schedules
and frequent flying. Also, our January 2009 report noted that FAMS was
taking steps to procure new personal digital assistant communication
devices--to replace the current, unreliable devices--and distribute
them to air marshals to improve their ability to communicate
effectively with management while in mission status.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ FAMS's changes to check-in and boarding procedures concern air
marshals' interactions with airline personnel. FAMS's policy continues
to require air marshals to adhere to established TSA regulations and
locally established airport procedures.
\16\ In July 2009, the DHS Office of Inspector General informed us
that it was initiating a review with objectives that include
determining whether TSA is pursuing communication capabilities to
ensure that federal air marshals in mission status can receive and send
time-sensitive, mission-related information through secure
communication while in flight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of the 67 air marshals we interviewed in 11 field offices
commented favorably about the various processes and initiatives for
addressing operational and quality-of-life issues, and the air marshals
credited the leadership of the previous FAMS Director. The current FAMS
Director, as noted in our January 2009 report, has expressed a
commitment to sustain progress and reinforce a shared vision for
workforce improvements by continuing applicable processes and
initiatives.
In our January 2009 report, we also noted that FAMS plans to
conduct a workforce satisfaction survey of all employees every 2 years,
building upon an initial survey conducted in fiscal year 2007, to help
identify issues affecting the ability of its workforce to carry out its
mission. We reported that a majority (79 percent) of the respondents to
the 2007 survey indicated that there had been positive changes from the
prior year, although the overall response rate (46 percent) constituted
less than half of the workforce. The 46 percent response rate was
substantially less than the 80 percent rate encouraged by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) in its guidance for federal surveys that
require its approval.\17\ According to the OMB guidance, a high
response rate increases the likelihood that the views of the target
population are reflected in the survey results. We also reported that
the 2007 survey's results may not provide a complete assessment of
employees' satisfaction because
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ The OMB guidance governs federal agency surveys of the public
at large or outside individuals, groups, or organizations, such as
local government entities. The FAMS workforce survey was administered
internally to gather information from the agency's employees. Although
internal workforce surveys such as the one conducted by FAMS do not
require OMB approval, we believe the OMB standards and guidance provide
relevant direction on planning, designing, and implementing high-
quality surveys--including the need to obtain a high response rate to
increase the potential that survey responses will accurately represent
the views of the survey population.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 of the 60 questions in the 2007 survey questionnaire
combined two or more issues, which could cause respondents to be
unclear on what issue to address and result in potentially misleading
responses, and
none of the 60 questions in the 2007 survey questionnaire
provided for response options such as ``not applicable'' or ``no basis
to judge''--responses that would be appropriate when respondents had
little or no familiarity with the topic in question.
In summary, our January 2009 report noted that obtaining a higher
response rate to FAMS's future surveys and modifying the structure of
some questions could enhance the surveys' potential usefulness by, for
instance, providing a more comprehensive basis for assessing employees'
attitudes and perspectives. Thus, to increase the usefulness of the
agency's biennial workforce satisfaction surveys, we recommended that
the FAMS Director take steps to ensure that the surveys are well
designed and that additional efforts are considered for obtaining the
highest possible response rates. Our January 2009 report recognized
that DHS and TSA agreed with our recommendation and noted that FAMS was
in the initial stages of formulating the next workforce satisfaction
survey. More recently, by letter dated July 2, 2009, DHS informed
applicable congressional committees and OMB of actions taken in
response to our recommendation.\18\ The response letter noted that
agency plans include (1) ensuring that questions in the 2009 survey are
clearly structured and unambiguous, (2) conducting a pretest of the
2009 survey questions, and (3) developing and executing a detailed
communication plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. Sec. 720, the head of a federal agency
must submit a written statement of the actions taken on our
recommendations to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs and to the House Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform not later than 60 days from the date of the report
and to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations with the
agency's first request for appropriations made more than 60 days after
the date of the report.
Congressional Oversight Issues
Federal air marshals are an important layer of aviation security.
FAMS, to its credit, has established a number of processes and
initiatives to address various operational and quality-of-life issues
that affect the ability of air marshals and other FAMS personnel to
perform their aviation security mission. The current FAMS Director has
expressed a commitment to continue relevant processes and initiatives
for identifying and addressing workforce concerns, maintaining open
lines of communications, and sustaining progress.
Similarly, this hearing provides an opportunity for congressional
stakeholders to focus a dialogue on how to sustain progress at FAMS.
For example, relevant questions that could be raised include the
following: •
In implementing the agency's concept of operations,
how effectively does FAMS use new threat information and
intelligence to modify flight coverage goals and the
corresponding flight schedules of air marshals?
In managing limited resources to mitigate a
potentially unlimited range of security threats, how does FAMS
ensure that federal air marshals are allocated appropriately
for meeting in-flight security responsibilities as well as
supporting new ground-based security responsibilities, such as
VIPR team assignments? What cost-benefit analyses, if any, are
being used to guide FAMS decision makers?
To what extent have appropriate performance measures
been developed for gauging the effectiveness and results of
resource allocations and utilization?
How does FAMS foster career sustainability for federal
air marshals given that maintaining an effective operational
tempo is not necessarily compatible with supporting a better
work-life balance?
These types of questions warrant ongoing consideration by FAMS
management and continued oversight by congressional stakeholders.
Mr. Chairman, this completes my prepared statement. I look forward
to answering any questions that you or other members of the
subcommittee may have.
Mr. Carney. Thank you, Mr. Lord, for your testimony.
And I now recognize Mr. Adler to summarize his statement
for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JON ADLER, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, FEDERAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Adler. Chairman Carney, Ranking Member Bilirakis, and
distinguished members of the committee, on behalf of the
membership of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association,
I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
My name is Jon Adler, and I am the national president of
FLEOA. I am proud to represent approximately 1,300 federal air
marshals and share their views with you regarding personnel and
workforce issues. As the ``boots on the plane,'' the flying air
marshals' perspective and insight are paramount to the success
and effectiveness of the agency.
Since the horrific events of September 11, 2001, the
Federal Air Marshals Service has struggled to grow beyond its
tumultuous past. Furthermore, after enduring an executive
management staff that was more fixated on dress codes than air
marshal safety, the agency is beginning to come together under
the strong leadership of Director Bob Bray.
The emotional wounds inflicted by the FAMS's executive
staff during the 2003 to 2006 period, all of which predates
Director Bray, still, unfortunately, lingers. Nonetheless, our
air marshals are valiantly trying to regain their agency's
credibility and reassemble a splintered workforce that plays a
vital role in our homeland security.
To their credit, they are succeeding. We can see this
success by examining the progress Director Bray and the air
marshals have made with the visible intermodal protection and
response program, otherwise known as VIPR. While it was
initially rolled out with many flaws, it has ultimately evolved
into a viable program.
On August 9, 2007, FLEOA met with Secretary Chertoff to
discuss the flaws in the program. Subsequent to the meeting,
Secretary Chertoff directed then-TSA Administrator Edmund
``Kip'' Hawley to ensure that the air marshals' safety would
not be compromised working ground-based missions.
After being appointed the FAMS director, Mr. Bray embraced
this and instituted a policy that corrected the operational and
safety issues.
Intelligence reports continue to indicate that subversive
groups are still searching for vulnerabilities in our public
transportation system. It is important that Congress recognizes
this and provides the FAMS with the necessary funding to
operate this important program.
Our allies in Israel who run the El Al airline have
succeeded by running a similar proactive program geared towards
ground-based missions. We should learn by their example.
While Director Bray has done an admirable job elevating
morale in the FAMS, the attrition rate continues to be high.
Anecdotal feedback from our membership indicates that this is
largely a result of the FAMS being trapped in a 2004 interim
TSA pay-for-performance scale.
Unlike all their DHS counterparts, such as ICE, CBP, and
the Secret Service, air marshals do not get in-step pay
increases. The logical solution to this problem is to place the
FAMS on the same G.S., which is General Schedule, pay scale
that their counterparts are on.
Another factor that impacts attrition is the limitation of
their training. Air marshals carry out a mission that entails
more than just security functions. Specifically, air marshals
should go through the Criminal Investigator Training Program
like their counterparts in DHS.
So what value does this bring? First, it would provide them
with the right training to perform ground-based assignments.
The training places heavy emphasis on interviewing skills,
report-writing, surveillance, legal procedure, and working
crime scenes.
It will also empower the force multiplier concept within
DHS. This means that the DHS could use the air marshals to
augment their law enforcement efforts in a variety of ways. An
example: the southwest border initiative, U.N. General Assembly
protection details, national emergencies, such as Hurricane
Katrina, et cetera.
Last, in an effort to remedy some of the personnel
hardships brought on by those who spoke out in the past, FLEOA
recommends that TSA conduct retroactive case reviews of past
whistleblower cases within the agency.
Brave air marshals such as Frank Terreri, who is here
today, as well as Robert MacLean and others, were punished in
2005 and 2006, prior to Director Bray coming on, for blowing
the whistle on past FAMS policies that endangered the public.
At the same time, FLEOA executive management, in the height
of its hypocrisy, continued to televise false bravado news
segments that publicized air marshal operational protocol. I
appeal to this committee to support all efforts to review these
cases and return them, those who were victimized, to full
flying duty.
In closing, I would like to leave this committee with one
point to consider. If you look at the TSA organization chart,
you will see that the FAMS are placed on the fourth row.
There isn't a person within TSA that has more credible law
enforcement and security experience than Director Bob Bray.
Furthermore, no other box on that chart represents the wealth
of law enforcement and security experience that the air marshal
workforce embodies. Shouldn't they be at the top of the chart,
leading TSA?
I thank you for taking the time to consider the viewpoint
of the flying air marshals.
And as the others, I am available and happy to answer any
questions you may have.
[The statement of Mr. Adler follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Adler
Chairman Carney, Ranking Member Bilirakis, and Distinguished
Members of the committee, on behalf of the membership of the Federal
Law Enforcement Officers Association, I thank you for the opportunity
to appear before you today. My name is Jon Adler and I am the National
President of F.L.E.O.A. I am proud to represent approximately 1,300
Federal Air Marshals, and share their views with you regarding
personnel and work- force issues. As the ``Boots on the Plane,'' the
flying Air Marshal's perspective and insight are paramount to the
success and effectiveness of the agency.
Since the horrific events of September 11th, 2001, the Federal Air
Marshals Service has struggled to grow beyond its tumultuous past.
Furthermore, after enduring an executive management staff that was more
fixated on dress codes than Air Marshal safety, the agency is beginning
to come together under the strong leadership of Director Bob Bray.
The emotional wounds inflicted by the FAMS' executive Staff during
the 2003 to 2006 period still linger. Nonetheless, our Air Marshals are
valiantly trying to regain their agency's credibility and reassemble a
splintered workforce that plays a vital role in our homeland security.
To their credit, they are succeeding.
We can see this success by examining the progress Director Bray and
the Air Marshals have made with the Visible Intermodal Protection and
Response (VIPR) program. While it was initially rolled out with many
flaws, it has ultimately evolved into a viable program.
On August 9th, 2007, FLEOA met with Secretary Michael Chertoff to
discuss the flaws in the program. Subsequent to the meeting, Secretary
Chertoff directed then TSA Administrator Edmund ``Kip'' Hawley to
ensure that the Air Marshals' safety would not be compromised working
ground based missions. After being appointed the FAMS Director, Mr.
Bray embraced this, and instituted a policy that corrected the
operational and safety issues.
Intelligence reports continue to indicate that subversive groups
are still searching for vulnerabilities in our public transportation
system. It is important that Congress recognizes this and provides the
FAMS with the necessary funding to operate this important program. Our
allies in Israel who run the El Al airline have succeeded by running a
similar proactive program geared towards ground based missions. We
should learn by their example.
While Director Bray has done an admirable job elevating moral in
the FAMS, the attrition rate continues to be high. Anecdotal feedback
from our membership indicates that this is largely a result of the FAMS
being trapped in the 2004 TSA pay for performance scale. Unlike all
their DHS counterparts, such as ICE, CBP and the Secret Service, Air
Marshals do not get ``in-step'' pay increases. The logical solution to
this problem is to place the FAMS on the same GS (General Schedule) pay
scale that their counterparts are on.
Another factor that impacts attrition is the limitation of their
training. Air Marshals' carry out a mission that entails more than
security functions. Specifically, Air Marshals should go through the
Criminal Investigator Training Program (CITP) like their counterparts
in DHS. What value does this bring? First, it would provide them with
the right training to perform ground based assignments. The training
places heavy emphasis on interviewing skills, report writing,
surveillance, legal procedure, and working crime scenes. It will also
empower the force multiplier concept within DHS. This means that the
DHS could use the Air Marshals to augment their law enforcement efforts
in a variety of ways, i.e., Southwest border initiative, UN General
Assembly protection details, national emergencies such as Hurricane
Katrina, etc.
Last, in an effort to remedy some of the personnel hardships
brought on those who spoke out in the past, FLEOA recommends that TSA
conduct retroactive case reviews of past Whistleblower cases within the
agency. Brave Air Marshals such as FrankTerreri who sits with me today,
and Robert MacLean were punished in 2005 and 2006 for blowing the
whistle on past FAMS policies that endangered the public. At the same
time, FAMS executive management, in the height of its hypocrisy,
continued to televise false bravado news segments that publicized Air
Marshal operational protocol. I appeal to this committee to support all
efforts to review these cases and return those who were victimized to
full flying duty.
In closing, I would like to leave this committee with one point to
consider. If you look at the TSA Organization chart, you will see that
the FAMS are placed on the fourth row. There isn't a person within TSA
that has more credible law enforcement and security experience than
Director Bob Bray. Furthermore, no other box on that chart represents
the wealth of law enforcement and security experience that the Air
Marshal workforce embodies. Shouldn't they be at the top of the chart,
leading TSA--I thank you for taking the time to consider the viewpoint
of the flying Air Marshal.
Mr. Carney. Thank you, Mr. Adler.
And thank you all for your testimony.
And I remind each member that he or she will have 5 minutes
to question the panel. And I will now recognize myself for 5
minutes.
Mr. Bray, I want to kind of dig into the VIPR issue real
quick. Can you describe some of the potential problems you saw
with a public face to FAMS? How is the anonymity protected, et
cetera?
Mr. Bray. The anonymity of the FAMs is protected now by
basing on where we deploy the FAMs. If a FAM is based in one
city and we have a VIPR program--we just had a large VIPR
operation in Seattle when they opened a new rail transport
system there. So we would send FAMS from the other cities--from
other cities other than Seattle so it is not their home city.
We send a large group of FAMS who are trained in VIPR
missions up there who are dedicated to VIPR missions. That is
one way we take care of the anonymity issues.
We also have the ability the FAMs in their hometown,
dressed in clothing that doesn't--they could be covert. They
could be overt. If they are overt, we address them in clothing
that says ``DHS.'' It doesn't say ``FAMS.'' It doesn't say
``TSA.'' So no one is really sure who they are.
And we worked with FLEOA to develop all those processes and
procedures, so I think we have a strong program now for
protecting the anonymity of the FAMs.
Mr. Carney. Okay. Mr. Adler, you would agree with that,
that things have improved?
Mr. Adler. Yes, I do. And I had referenced our meeting with
Secretary Chertoff. After that time, he embraced everything
which Director Bray just said. We have met with Director Bray.
We have opened lines of communication with him. We expressed
the views of the flying FAMS, and he immediately acted upon it.
And I think he is doing a great job putting all efforts towards
protecting the anonymity of the FAMs while engaging in this
important program.
Mr. Carney. Okay. Mr. Lord, what challenges remain?
Mr. Lord. I had a more fundamental question about these
VIPR operations, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I think you need
to ask whether these activities are compatible with the core
mission of FAMS, especially since about half of them are
conducted on non-aviation facilities. This is totally outside
the context or protecting passengers, protecting air crews.
That is the first question. To what extent does this represent
mission creep?
The second issue I have is, how do you actually measure the
effectiveness of the VIPR deployments conducted to date? We
have had some discussions with TSA on this, and they recognize
the importance of this, yet these performance measures are
still being rolled out. Yet, at the same time, TSA is seeking
$50 million to fund these activities.
From a GAO perspective, we would argue it is important to
have these measures in place first, before a grow in the
program.
Mr. Carney. Mr. Bray, how do you address that? Is it true
that we have mission creep here with the VIPR team or the FAMs?
Mr. Adler. I think, in referencing the organization chart,
it would be something, a matter of modifying an acronym. I am
more concerned with the threats and how we are prepared to
respond to them than being overly fixated on the fact that the
FAMS, the ``A'' stands for ``air.'' I think they are the law
enforcement component within TSA, and they are responsible.
I mean, there is no other law enforcement component there.
And if something were to happen on the airport grounds, which
is not up in the air, there is no federal presence in any of
our airports that can respond as a first responder, and set up
a crime scene, and deal with a crime, which is a federal
violation, other than the federal air marshals.
So I don't see it as mission creep. I see it as long
overdue, responding to real threats, and getting out there in a
proactive manner to deal with it.
Mr. Carney. So local law enforcement doesn't fulfill that
mission?
Mr. Adler. I don't think so. In fact, in airports, you may
find one officer there, and it seems their primary function is
to just--to deal with law enforcement officers flying armed.
And should something happen that is a federal violation, they
don't have the jurisdiction.
And they are not the appropriate person to immediately deal
with the situation, whether it is a pursuit, apprehension, set
up the crime scene, interview witnesses. It is not their
jurisdiction.
Mr. Carney. Mr. Bray, first?
Mr. Bray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
With regard to the statement about mission creep, when
Congress authorized the VIPR program as part of the fulfilling
the obligations of the 9/11 Act, they specifically authorized
the Federal Air Marshal Service and TSA more full-time
employees to fulfill that role.
So when we put a FAM into a VIPR program, there is no
mission degradation regarding our coverage of flights in the
air. We still have a robust coverage of those flights, but the
FAM that is dedicated to the VIPR team is assigned to the VIPR
team, and they do work--the VIPR program is part of TSA's core
element, with regard to our focus on the entire transportation
venue.
If you recall, after the train bombings in Madrid and
London, there was an emphasis on TSA to focus on areas in
addition to aviation. And this was our response to the
strategic development of assets, and it does include TSA, it
does include other federal agencies, it does include local law
enforcement and the transit systems, when we have a VIPR team
go into that program. So it is a very good--very well
collaborated program now.
Mr. Carney. Okay. Mr. Lord, quickly?
Mr. Lord. I would like to respond to Mr. Adler's comments
on the operations. I have a lot of respect for Mr. Adler, but I
think it is important to point out, in fact, we have a report
coming out tomorrow. We focused on VIPR operations in a mass
transit mode.
Some of the transit officials we met with raised this
question about additionality. They said, ``We already have a
security force,'' so they wondered out loud about what these
additional VIPR deployments really provided.
So, anyway, I think it is important to get the question on
the table. And you can probably argue it both ways.
Mr. Carney. All right. Thank you.
I now recognize Mr. Bilirakis for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Question for Director Bray and Mr. Adler. As I mentioned
before, when this committee considered H.R. 2200, the TSA
Authorization Act, Congressman Lungren offered an amendment
that would have restored the Criminal Investigator Training
Program to the Federal Air Marshal Service. Are you in support
of this effort? And if you are, can you please tell me why?
Mr. Adler. We are definitely in support of it. And my
membership, the air marshals we represent, are very much in
support of it.
I think it is important to look at the actual program to
understand the value it would bring to the air marshals and its
flying air marshals. The Criminal Investigator Training Program
is not as glorious as maybe Hollywood might suggest, in terms
of what actually goes on in the academy. They emphasize a lot
of things like interviewing skills, legal procedure, report
writing, even surveillance, and also setting up and
establishing a crime scene.
And I think these things are very important. You know, we
have some guys within the law enforcement community who go out
and do great work. And then, when it comes down to documenting
what they have done, the whole thing just goes belly up.
I think the value that you get out of CITP would transform
into real meaningful training experience or ultimately into
real viable experience that the FAMs can really build on as
they engage in these VIPR missions.
Mr. Bilirakis. Mr. Bray, please?
Mr. Bray. Thank you. I think it is important to give our
federal air marshals all the tools they can possess to do their
jobs, to detect, deter and defeat terrorism.
And I strongly believe that the addition of the Criminal
Investigator Training Program to our arsenal of weapons, if you
want to put it that way, to provide our people with that, as
Jon said, the enhanced interview and interrogation skills, the
behavior detection skills, and the report-writing skills.
And it really gives them--the training they receive now is
training that is really basic police officer training. This
will allow them to be proactive in their interdiction
capabilities. The training they receive now, if you could
change the paradigm of thinking, is to respond to after the
event occurs.
I want to change that thinking to be able--and give them
the tools in their arsenals to be able to go forward and
interdict before the event occurs, when they see something that
is suspicious, and have that repertoire of knowledge in their
capacity to move forward with that.
So I think it is very important that we move the CITP
training. And I have no desire to have them become 1811s or
criminal investigators. We are happy to stay as 1801s, federal
air marshals, and we don't want to change their titles or
anything else. We just want to give them that tool in their
arsenal.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much.
A question for Director Bray again. What new initiatives is
the FAMS planning for fiscal year 2010? I know you touched on
it a little bit, if you can elaborate.
Mr. Bray. The initiatives that we have underway that are
underway right now is a program called the senior federal air
marshal program that recognizes those people who have
approximately 4-1/2 years of flying time. It equals out to
about 800 hours of flying time per year. I am sorry, 4-1/2
years.
And that recognizes the people that have been doing the
job, the daily job, and then going out there in their quiet
professionalism. And it gives them another award and
recognition. And we are going to change their commission book
so it says ``senior federal air marshal.'' And it is a
recognition of everyone who has been doing the job quietly
since we stood up the organization.
We are also instituting a field training officer program.
We call it a FAM mentoring program, when our new FAMS come
onboard, we will have a senior FAM that will be assisting that
person with their introduction, indoctrination into the Federal
Air Marshal Service.
We think both those programs would help build our corporate
culture, can move us forward in what I call the culture of
accountability, another program that we started, to help
everyone recognize that we all need to take care of each other,
when we see a person that is about to get in trouble or who is
going to get into trouble, to try to have them interdict that
and help that person before the person makes a mistake in their
life that will affect their career or their family.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much.
One last question for Mr. Lord. Your report notes the
positive results of many of the FAMS's initiatives to address
workforce issues. In your opinion, how would you rank the
Federal Air Marshal Service's outreach to its employees on
workforce issues compared to the efforts of the other federal
agencies and departments? And do you believe that any of the
FAMS's initiatives could be used as the best practices for
other components within the Department of Homeland Security or
federal government-wide?
Mr. Lord. Let me respond to one of your latter questions.
We didn't do a comparative analysis comparing their outreach
efforts with other federal agencies, but we certainly were
impressed by the scale and scope of these improvement
initiatives. So that would probably be--that is left to a
follow-on review to compare what they are doing with other TSA
components, perhaps, or other components within the Department
of Homeland Security.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Carney. Thank you.
The chair will now recognize other members for questions
they may wish to ask the witnesses. In accordance with our
committee rules and practice, I will recognize members who were
present at the start of the hearing based on seniority on the
subcommittee, alternating between majority and minority. Those
members coming in later will be recognized in order of their
arrival.
The chair now recognizes for 5 minutes the gentleman from
New York, Mr. Pascrell.
Mr. Pascrell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bray, it is my understanding that many of what I would
consider positive policy and procedural changes that are going
on within the Federal Air Marshal Service that deal with the
workforce were brought to light by air marshals. In fact, some
of those air marshals blew the whistle, voiced their concerns
about past policies and past actions.
Many of these same air marshals found themselves enmeshed
in legal battles following their revelations. In October of
2007, a couple years ago, in your seat sat TSA Administrator
Kip Hawley, and I asked him about federal air marshal Robert
MacLean's termination, because he blew the whistle. And as many
other marshals, he blew the whistle, and what he blew the
whistle on was implemented by TSA, but he lost his job.
Administrator Hawley promised me and this panel that he
would get back to me on the case, and yet he is gone, and I
never received a response. I don't like those kinds of things.
That is not the way to do business here.
But I have a good memory still. What I am also very
concerned about is that these officers who blew the whistle on
wrongdoing still have not gotten their jobs back. I have read
the pronouncements of the merit board. I have read the
pronouncements of the TSA. These folks still did not get their
job back. Three years after the fact, we are going on 4 years,
and we are here.
In fact, according to Tom Devine, the legal director of the
Government Accountability Project, FAMS has not made an attempt
to restore whistleblowers that lost their jobs for bringing to
light issues that were later found to be valid. In fact, in
many of them, we have changed the notification either from
sensitive to classified and then we have unclassified the
information to--I mean, this is serious, and we need to treat
it seriously.
I find this completely unacceptable, and I am sure you do,
too, Director Bray, even in the face of progress you have made,
and you have made progress, and I congratulate you.
After having being terminated for doing the right thing,
shouldn't these folks be restored in their jobs? Can you tell
me what the service intends to do in regards to restoring
former whistleblowers that lost their jobs for bringing to
light issues that were later found to be valid?
Director Bray?
Mr. Bray. Sir, I think the response to you is a two-part
response. But first, we have to talk about is why these people
felt it was necessary to bring into light other than by going
to the media and going on TV and things like that. And I think
that is a problem that we have been trying to follow up for the
last several years----
Mr. Pascrell. Well, they weren't responded to by the
department.
Mr. Bray. That is what I mean, sir. I mean, when--now we
are trying to engage the workforce to--I just recently
established what I call the FAM advisory council, where we have
representatives in each office that meet with me personally on
a regular basis. I engage the people in listening sessions. I
also engage people, the FAMs, in other ways, listening
sessions.
We have what I call breakfast with Bob, where I regularly
go out and have breakfast with transiting FAMS. And what I say
when I meet with the FAMs, the first thing I open it with is
that, when you tell me there is a problem in your office, you
know, there is not going to be any retribution or retaliation
for you bringing these issues forward. So we are trying to open
that line of communication.
And if we have any whistleblowers that come forward now, we
just finished a training period with all of our frontline
supervisors to--with the EEO. We had--actually had the office
of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission come in and provide
training for all of our frontline supervisors on EEO matters,
discipline matters, and whistleblower matters.
So we are trying to get--push that down from the top down
to our frontline supervisors who are dealing with the FAMs
every day. They are engaging everyone much more than we did in
the past, so that is one thing.
As far as the whistleblowers, we fully support all the
rights and privileges they have under the Whistleblower
Protection Act. And once their cases now, sir, as you know, are
in the legal system. So I am encumbered from making any comment
on that until those cases are resolved, but I think we have
really tried to outreach to our people now to solve the problem
and why they felt it was so necessary to whistle blow in the
first place.
Mr. Pascrell. There is one way to get them out there, the
judiciary system, and that is to give them their jobs back,
pure and simple. The only reason why this is before the courts
is because the department did not give them back their jobs,
and they deserve to have their jobs back.
Thank you.
Mr. Carney. Thank you, Mr. Pascrell.
The chair now recognizes my good friend from Pennsylvania,
Mr. Dent, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Dent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Director Bray, over the last several years, there have been
many reports of alleged misconduct by some air marshals. What
processes do you have in place to address misconduct?
Mr. Bray. When we have an initial report of misconduct by a
federal air marshal, it is automatically referred to the Office
of Inspection, which is a separate entity within TSA. They will
normally review that case with the Department of Homeland
Security inspector general to see who is going to investigate
that case, and they will go out very rapidly and investigate
that claim of misconduct.
And so we do not investigate it. We refer it to other
people, and then, when they give us the report back, we will
make a decision on the action we will take against that person.
And there is a set of actions that we work with our counsel's
office to make sure that all the actions are equitable as far
as discipline against a person.
I have, since I took this office over, changed--through
TSA, changed the policy for someone arrested for DUI. It used
to be the lowest level was letter of reprimand. And now for a
federal air marshal, when they are arrested for DUI, it is 30
days off, which is a significant for first offense, where 30
days off is a minimum. It could be more than that, depending on
the circumstances around the incident.
Mr. Dent. Do you think that you need to change your
background check process? Do you think that is necessary?
Mr. Bray. Sir, I don't think so. I think our background
check process, it does take a little while with OPM. We go
through OPM for our criminal--for our background check process,
as far as the actual interviews.
But most of the incidents occur, you know, obviously well
after the background check process. I think we had some issues
there at the standing up of the organization, when the
organization was first started. But I think now we have a very
rigorous process with review of the person's background that
involves a field office, office of personnel security, and
others within the organization.
Mr. Dent. And, finally, what rules and policies do the
federal air marshals have in place to ensure minimum rest
standards for federal air marshals to ensure that we have an
alert workforce?
Mr. Bray. That is something we have worked on since I ran
that program back in 2003. And that is another one of our
initiatives I should have mentioned earlier, where we have now
what is called a 60-hour rule, that whenever the person's
Friday evening occurs, at 6 p.m., we give them at least 60
hours off before their next flight.
When they have an international flight, there are work
rules for how much time they have off. On an international
flight--we have all flown internationally. We realize there is
jetlag, there are many issues with time change. So we try to
work with them on that.
There is also--we have the mission exchange program, where
if a person has a family event or some crisis that comes up and
they don't want to use leave or they would rather--they have
the ability within their field office to contact other federal
air marshals to see if they can change that mission with
someone else.
So we have been proactive on that. We are also working in
the future--we are working on it now. We are working on in the
future to do what we call scheduling consistency programs,
where we are--if a FAM has a flight that starts at a certain
time period--say, 8 a.m. on their Monday, whenever it is--
obviously, we are a 24/7 organization, but we try to--the first
flight of their workweek is at 8 a.m. We are working to make
that schedule consistent throughout the week so it is within a
3-hour window of that time slot throughout the week. And we
think that will help with the issues which we have with any
sleep disturbance patterns or circadian rhythm patterns and
things like that.
So we are working towards that. That is a long process. We
are doing it manually now, where we dedicate an employee to do
that. We want to automate it, but it is going to probably
take--probably take us a few more months, probably a couple of
years to finally finish that project.
Mr. Dent. Thank you.
And, Mr. Lord, your report notes the usefulness of the
federal air marshals' workforce satisfaction survey and
recommends some changes to enhance its future surveys. Aside
from those recommendations, are there any other issues you
believe that the federal air marshals should address to improve
its core mission or improve its workforce?
Mr. Lord. That is an excellent question. Our latest report
focused on the recommendations related to improving the
usefulness of the workforce survey. We have previously looked
at federal air marshals, made recommendations to improve in
other areas, such as amending their policies and check-in
boarding procedures. They have implemented those, as Director
Bray noted.
So those are our most current recommendations, the ones
related to workforce satisfaction survey.
Mr. Dent. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Carney. Thank you.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I thank the witnesses for testifying this morning.
Because time is of the essence, I will move rather quickly.
Would you kindly address a piece of legislation, H.R. 1881,
the Transportation Security Workforce Enhancement Act of 2009,
that was passed out of this committee? Are you familiar with
it, sir?
It is my belief that this will address some of the fairness
and equity issues with reference to salary. Can you briefly
tell me if you have a similar opinion?
Mr. Bray. Sir, I do have a similar opinion. We are always
looking for things that will enhance our workforce. I believe
this will be a strong enhancement of our workforce, and I
support this program, as the administration does, I believe,
and I support what the administration is working for to enhance
our program.
Mr. Green. Now, moving to another topic quickly, we talked
about the downtime for marshals. In between flights, is there a
downtime, or do they work an 8-hour day one hour after another?
How do they receive some degree of relief in the course of a
day?
Mr. Bray. It depends on the flights. We generally try to--
they do work a little more than an 8-hour day on average. Their
flight time average was about 5 hours a day, so they will have
a little downtime within the airport.
But as we all know, when you travel, you know, with weather
and other issues with airplanes, sometimes it is hectic. But we
do work with them very assiduously to make sure they have the
downtime on their days off.
We have a certain amount of training days scheduled every
quarter. We have a certain amount of what we call non-mission
status days. So they don't fly all the time. We try to get them
in the office to help with their training. We are very strong
advocates of training, so we have a number of initiatives to
help with their downtime.
Mr. Green. Are you receiving--without getting into a
specific complaint--complaints about downtime still?
Mr. Bray. Sir, I don't believe--I am not. I don't hear much
of that when I engage with the FAMs on--either at the
breakfasts or in the advisory councils.
Mr. Green. Are marshals permitted to identify themselves to
members of Congress?
Mr. Bray. That is up to them, sir. I mean, certainly.
Mr. Green. Is it a violation of any rule to do so?
Mr. Bray. Not that I am aware of, sir.
Mr. Green. I ask, because a person has identified himself
as a marshal to me. I have talked to more than one, I think.
And perhaps it is just the way that I look that causes people
to tell me their woes, but I will tell you that that is a
concern that has been expressed to me by a person who
represented himself to be a marshal.
I will tell you, I did not check the ID of the person, but,
you know, if you can look like a marshal, this person looked
like a marshal, okay? So there are concerns about the downtime.
Let me move quickly to something else. Protecting the
protectors is the style of this hearing. We have had recent
applications for positions. Is it true that you had about
17,000 applications?
Mr. Bray. Yes, sir, it is true.
Mr. Green. And my assumption is that you had a great deal
of diversity within the applications. Tell me what--currently,
what is the breakdown statistically with reference to
ethnicities within the force?
Mr. Bray. Sir, I don't have that in front of me, but it is
not as good as we would hope.
Mr. Green. Is it true that we have about 4.7 percent women?
Mr. Bray. I believe that is true. Yes, sir.
Mr. Green. Can you go on and give me any additional
intelligence?
Mr. Bray. I don't have it in front of me. We will certainly
get that back to you. We can get that back to you today, I
believe.
Mr. Green. Is it true that about 73 percent of the
workforce is Anglo?
Mr. Bray. I think that sounds about right, sir.
Mr. Green. Is it true that you do not have an African-
American, Hispanic, nor do we have an Asian that is an SES?
Mr. Bray. That is not true, sir.
Mr. Green. Help me.
Mr. Bray. We do have--several African-Americans are SES,
either as field office supervisors or in the headquarters staff
as assistant directors.
Mr. Green. And how many do we have totally SES?
Mr. Bray. African-Americans?
Mr. Green. No, no, total positions.
Mr. Bray. Total within the Federal Air Marshal Service?
Mr. Green. Yes, yes.
Mr. Bray. I believe there are 21.
Mr. Green. Twenty-one? All right, well, would you be kind
enough to give me a written response that will include the
statistical breakdown on positions and various ethnicities?
By the way, I don't ask this question because I think that
you have to be of a certain ethnicity to serve. I think all
capable, competent and qualified persons should serve, if
given--if they desire to and they apply.
So what I am interested in is making sure that all capable,
competent and qualified persons will have the opportunity to
serve. And we want the numbers to reflect it. We live in a
world where it is not enough for things to be right; they must
also look right. And we want to make sure that, notwithstanding
stats being right, that we have the proper appearance for work
purposes to getting the job done, capable, competent, qualified
persons.
I thank you for your responses.
Mr. Bray. Thank you.
Mr. Carney. Thank you, Mr. Green.
I think we will start a second round here.
Mr. Bray, I want to follow up on something Mr. Dent was
talking about, in terms of disciplinary actions. You mentioned,
for example, a DUI would elicit a 30-day time off. Is that
without pay?
Mr. Bray. Correct. Without pay, without law enforcement
privileges.
Mr. Carney. Okay. Now, how consistent across the various
offices are our policies promulgated? And, actually, how
consistent are they, in terms of time off, in terms of
disciplinary, in terms of promotion, that sort of thing?
Mr. Bray. To answer the first part of your question--
because it is the difference between policy and promotion--but
the policy, we actually have a unit called policy compliance
unit that looks at that very issue with regards to time off,
discipline actions, and those certain manners, where we work
with the policy compliance unit and with the TSA office of
inspection and TSA office of chief counsel to try to ensure
that we do have equity across the entire spectrum of our
offices for discipline matters.
As far as promotion, it is a competitive promotion process
that we go through. And the persons that are interested in that
do bid on their promotion. There is a panel that we get
together of level of supervisors that review the applications,
and then we go through that. There is a long process for that.
Mr. Carney. Is there a written guidance that goes out to
all the offices, field offices for disciplinary administrative
procedures?
Mr. Bray. There is a general written guidance, yes, sir.
Mr. Carney. Okay. All right. And how you--your breakfasts
with Bob, I guess, are how you kind of take the temperature in
making sure that the--you know, the morale issue, I think, is
being addressed, that that is one of the things certainly. And
I really applaud your lines of communication there.
But what stuff do you take beyond that to make sure that
these field offices are run effectively, you know, that they
are following the procedures? And by the way, you might want to
follow up with how much latitude does a district or a field
director have?
Mr. Bray. They do have a certain amount of latitude, but
each office is inspected on a regular basis by the TSA office
of inspection. They look at morale. They look at compliance to
the rules. They look at compliance to the administrative
standards. They are looking to make sure everybody is
performing to their physical fitness standards and their re-
qualification scores on a regular basis.
They go through the office on a pretty thorough basis, and
it is done on a regular basis. And we can also--they have been
very helpful to us whenever we had an issue in their office
where we wanted them to go out and look at a--do a special
inspection. They respond to us. We get a report on that, and we
will go over that report at my level with the various assistant
directors to see what is going on in the office to make sure we
are up to standard.
Mr. Carney. Okay.
Mr. Lord, how consistent are these rules applied, do you
think?
Mr. Lord. That is a great question. Unfortunately, that was
outside the scope of the review we undertook and issued in
2009. We focused on what processes, rules, procedures were
enacted in response to the concerns raised by the air marshals.
That would be the logical next step. To what extent are the
procedures that were put in place? To what extent are they
being adhered to? But that was outside the scope of the last
assignment we did.
Mr. Carney. Mr. Adler, do you hear any problems of
favoritism or discrepancies in terms of how folks are treated
in various offices? Have you ever heard instances of that?
Mr. Adler. Unfortunately, we have that in every agency.
There isn't anything out of the ordinary or exclusive to the
air marshals. You know, my membership consists of federal law
enforcement officers that come from over 65 different agencies.
And I will have one member from every agency who will assert
that, will assert there is an inconsistent application of
policies and procedures and favoritism.
Any time you involve people and egos and personalities, you
are going to come across it. But there isn't anything that I
have seen--and having my agency president here with me, who is
my liaison with the air marshals--that was brought to my
attention to say there was anything that we needed to address
or discuss with Director Bray along those lines.
Mr. Carney. Okay.
I just kind of want to change the direction slightly, Mr.
Adler. As you may know, the full committee held a markup a
couple of weeks ago for H.R. 1881, the Transportation Security
Workforce Enhancement Act. The focus of the act was not only
TSOs, but all TSA personnel, including FAMS.
Could you please elaborate on your thoughts about providing
the workforce a voice through employee representatives and
collective bargaining?
Mr. Adler. Yes. We previously opposed the position put
forth--I think it was both by President Bush and Senator
McConnell--in terms of the impact, giving TSA employees
collective bargaining rights. In particular, it would somehow
impact the president's ability to deploy these folks in a
national crisis.
And we were offended by that commentary. You know, we
consider union employees--and I grew up in a union family--as
some of the most patriotic people in this country. Look at the
military rolls. You know, who enlists in the service? Who are
the first people to step up?
So I think allowing them collective bargaining rights is
reasonable. It is what our country is about. It is about due
process. It is about transparency and open dialogue. It is
nothing to be intimidated by. It is nothing to suggest that
there is going to be some sort of secret coup among the TSA
screeners, to usurp the authority of the administration.
We support any vehicle that allows for this open
communication, reasonable discussion on important issues that
impact the workforce.
Mr. Carney. But what will this do for morale, giving them
the same rights and lists more protections and compensation?
Mr. Adler. I think it would be a tremendous elevation of
morale. Now, in my situation, we are not a union. We are a
professional association. Our membership and the air marshals
who we represent are precluded from engaging in collective
bargaining.
Some of what we do may seem to be similar to the function
of a union, such as engaging elected officials, coming to
hearings such as this, providing legal representation for our
members. I think that vehicle in and of itself has been very
important and very supportive to the air marshals.
So although not necessarily a collective bargaining
situation, when you have a director like Director Bray, who has
a real open door, things are great, and the membership feels as
though their voice is being heard. Unfortunately, other
directors aren't necessarily as receptive as Director Bray is
to getting that stakeholder input, so that is where collective
bargaining kind of makes it more of a formal setting, where
they are somewhat required to engage, I guess, the collective
voice of their workforce.
Mr. Carney. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This question is for Director Bray and Mr. Adler. Could
some quality-of-life issues and challenges faced by air
marshals be addressed simply by increasing the number of air
marshals?
Mr. Bray. Clearly that would increase the quality of life.
We would have to work with the Congress, because the Congress
does have an interest in the amount of missions that the FAMs
fly.
But, yes, that would be a definite benefit to our force. I
mean, we do operate pretty much at maximum capacity for what
they can do. And it would allow us more time for training and
employee development and other areas. So, yes, I would be very
strongly in favor of that.
Mr. Bilirakis. Mr. Adler?
Mr. Adler. Yes, we completely agree. I think a lot of the
issues that have been raised and that Director Bray and myself
and FLEOA have been working on to address really are the result
of a workforce that should be larger. You know, whether it is a
health issue, it is a scheduling issue that we already hit
upon, we would have more air marshals, better coverage.
Then they will be in a situation where they can take their
annual leave, vacation time. The number of health and medical
issues would be reduced. And, obviously, we would have more
people to better protect air travel and airplanes and other
modes of transportation.
So we fully support and recognize the real value to getting
more air marshals within the service.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you.
One more question for you, Mr. Adler. How does the outreach
conducted by the FAMS's leadership compare with outreach
conducted by other agencies and departments in which you have
members?
Mr. Adler. Top-notch. You know, as I mentioned, we have
65--over 65 different agencies. We have come a long way. And I
have touched upon it in my statement.
And not to reopen old wounds, but it wasn't the case back
in 2003, 2004, 2005, where the director at the time wouldn't
engage us, referred through the acronym for our organization as
``fleas,'' and we have gone from that, you know, from the
ridiculous to the sublime sort of thing and moved way past it,
and now we have a great working relationship with the director.
Comparatively speaking, we generally have open-door access
with most other agency directors. The difference is, I don't
think--I think what really distinguishes Director Bray and puts
him in a top category with maybe three other directors is the
sincerity, the ability to listen and act upon what is
recommended, and the follow-through. I think he takes the
recommendations that we bring to him.
And, again, you know, every agency says they have their
internal process to bring recommendations and raise them up
through the ranks. They all have this process, this idea box,
if you will. But the problem is, employees generally are
reluctant to express their real views for fear of reprisal. If
the supervisor doesn't like them, they are considered a
troublemaker. And I think Director Bray had done a tremendous
job getting past that, you know, that whole, ``Oh, maybe I
shouldn't say something. It could hurt me.''
I think the environment has changed, and greatly to his
credit. And I think that is what really distinguishes him,
whereas some of the other directors, it is more of a smoke-and-
mirrors relationship.
Mr. Bilirakis. Very good. Thank you, sirs, for your
testimony. And thank you for your service. And I also want to
commend you for hiring veterans. And we can even push it up a
little higher. Thank you.
Mr. Adler. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Carney. Thank you, Mr. Bilirakis.
Just a quick question. Mr. Adler, are you related to Mr.
Bray?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Adler. We are about the same height.
Mr. Carney. I see. All right. All right. You know, it is
not often we have somebody speak so favorably of a director.
And that is to your credit, Mr. Bray, and it is--just struck
me, frankly, from this position, because we don't see it very
often.
All right. Mr. Pascrell, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Pascrell. We sure don't see it very frequently, but it
is a good feeling to know that. I mean, I hope we can say that
a year from now, and then it will be really good to say.
Director Bray, who determines whether information is going
to be categorized as sensitive security information or
classified information? Who makes that determination? Just give
me a brief answer, if you would.
Mr. Bray. Sir, if there are any questions like that, TSA
has an office. It is called the SSI office. They make that
determination.
Mr. Pascrell. So the sensitive security information is
determined by the sensitive security office?
Mr. Bray. Yes, sir. And there are some that is obvious. Our
mission status, our flights that we are on, things like that,
that is classified. And then there are others, as you say, at
the SSI. And if there is any question about that, it would be
referred to--for an opinion from the SSI.
Mr. Pascrell. They have ultimate authority? In other words,
that doesn't have to be certified by the director of TSA, the
administrator?
Mr. Bray. My understanding is no. I will get back to you on
that.
Mr. Pascrell. Let me ask you this question. You mentioned
in your testimony the fact that check-in and boarding
procedures have been modified to help preserve air marshal
anonymity. Is that correct?
Mr. Bray. That is correct. Yes, sir.
Mr. Pascrell. The majority of those changes, though,
require action on the part of the air carrier. Is that not
correct?
Mr. Bray. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Pascrell. So that is out of your hands, basically, is
it not?
Mr. Bray. We work in concert with the air carriers through
the aircraft operators security plan to set that up. And there
was a long process to change it. That is why it took us a while
to change the boarding procedures, because we had to work with
all of our stakeholders in that plan.
But, sir, yes, you are correct.
Mr. Pascrell. What is being done to ensure that airline
personnel are fully aware of these new procedures and are
training their employees--are they training their employees on
how to interact with air marshals in an appropriate manner?
What is being done to get to the goal line?
Mr. Bray. Sir, initially, we issued a security directive on
this program. And then we also have aggressive outreach with
the various airlines, as far as--and then we have feedback from
the FAMs. If they have an issue, they can call our liaison
section immediately and bring this up to our liaison section,
who reaches out to their points of contact from the various
airlines.
But the issue we do see is the amount of turnover at the
various gate agents that we deal with.
Mr. Pascrell. On a scale of one to five, how would you say
all, you know, the airlines are cooperating or not cooperating,
five being the highest form of cooperation?
Mr. Bray. I would say very close to five, sir.
Mr. Pascrell. Very close to five?
Would you agree with that, Mr. Adler?
Mr. Adler. In terms of airline cooperation with not just
the air marshals, but with the total law enforcement workforce,
I would give them a lower rating.
Mr. Pascrell. What rating would you give them?
Mr. Adler. You know, it is a very frustrating point,
because every airline and every airport is different in terms
of how they engage us and interact with us. So one may get
one--get a number one rating at one particular airport. One
airline may get a two or a three.
Mr. Pascrell. Are they consistent?
Mr. Adler. No, they are not.
Mr. Pascrell. So, in other words, it depends on which
airport you go out of or come into, it is going to determine
whether the--part of the determination of cooperation?
Mr. Adler. Yes.
Mr. Pascrell. Do you ever get any hostility from the
carriers?
Mr. Adler. Absolutely.
Mr. Pascrell. Well, give me an idea of what kind of
hostility. You know, you are providing service to the airlines.
Some are going back to one we got rid of, rent-a-cop, you know?
So you are giving service to the airlines. And what is the
reaction at some of the airports?
Mr. Adler. The reaction is, while they may publicize their
intent where a passenger's safety comes first--and we all hear
those announcements in the airport and on the planes--I think
sometimes the reality tends to be different.
And an example, to address your question, we have to
interact with the gate. You know, there is obviously a showing
of identification. They are required to indicate if other
people are on the plane.
And the thing is, in going through this process, and
without my getting too specific on it, what happens is that,
when they engage us, if we show identification, they may make a
ridiculous display, hold up our credentials. Obviously, it is
not the greatest environment, whether you are at the ticket
counter----
Mr. Pascrell. They hold up your credentials?
Mr. Adler. They will hold them up----
Mr. Pascrell. Do they make an announcement that there is an
air marshal going onto the airplane and where he is seated?
Mr. Adler. What they will do sometimes, they will--I will
ask them, well, you know, about the boarding process and that
has all been changed? They will sometimes call you on a P.A.
system. They will say, ``Mr. Adler, please come to the
counter.'' So everyone now obviously is looking, and now I
sometimes think, ``Maybe I should start limping,'' as though I
need pre-boarding, you know, help or something.
Mr. Pascrell. And you have still got fellows that have not
gotten their jobs back because they told us about certain
situations? And here the airline is calling you out? Oh, okay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Carney. Thank you, Mr. Pascrell.
Mr. Green for 5 minutes, please.
Mr. Green. Thank you.
Let's continue with something that was broached briefly,
and that has to do with disciplinary action. It is generally
perceived that, if you ought to have consistent disciplinary
action, you have to have some codification of policies and
procedures with reference to disciplinary actions or persons
will perceive the actions taken with reference to discipline as
unfair, because it can be argued that one person breached one
rule and received a certain act of discipline and another
received a different act of discipline.
So can you tell me, do we have codified rules with
reference the disciplinary actions and policies and procedures?
Mr. Bray. We don't have specific codified rules that says,
``If you do this, you will get this,'' because we engage what I
call the whole person concept within the FAMs and TSA, to look
at--if you have been in one airport, you have been in one
airport. Everything is different. You can't put a set of rules
in for each action.
But we have general parameters that we view. And, as I
said, we have the policy compliance unit and the office of
inspection that review the action. And they make the
recommendation on the proposed discipline. And then it is
reviewed by these supervisors in the offices and the office
supervisors at headquarters to look at that, as I said earlier.
But we do have certain rules, like I said, when a person is
arrested for DUI, it is normally, barring exigent
circumstances, would be 30 days off----
Mr. Green. If I may, is it your opinion that the
disciplinary actions are consistent across the force with this
paradigm that you have?
Mr. Bray. Sir, I believe it is as consistent as an
organization our size can make it and with the number of
officers we have across the country. I meet with the people
that run the policy compliance unit on a very regular basis to
go over just what you are talking about, to ensure that the
discipline that has been meted out under my watch is
consistent.
So we are making strides on that. We constantly look at
that. And we discuss--and as I said earlier, we had a 3-day
training session for all of our frontline supervisors, just on
that--one of the topics covered was that very issue, to make
sure that the discipline for one person who say they have
missed a flight was equivalent to the person that--another
person that missed a flight.
And we try--there are always exigent circumstances. The
reason why we have to look at on a very case-by-case basis,
because there are always exigent circumstances.
Mr. Green. Would it surprise you to know that police
departments do codify these things and that they probably get
fairly good results as a result of codification? Would it
surprise you to know this?
Mr. Bray. No, sir. That would not surprise me.
Mr. Green. Let me move quickly to another area. We talked
briefly about the stats. And I have been accorded some
information that I would like to just go over with you.
We talked about the SES positions. And I would like to ask
you now about females who are in the SES positions. How many
females do we have?
Mr. Bray. Off the top of my head, two, sir.
Mr. Green. Two?
Mr. Bray. Sorry. Off the top of my head, two, sir.
Mr. Green. And when were they hired, please?
Mr. Bray. Both were at the beginning of the organization.
Mr. Green. At the beginning? Would that be prior to April
19, 2009?
Mr. Bray. I am sorry, sir. I believe it is three now.
Mr. Green. Three?
Mr. Bray. Yes, sir.
Mr. Green. And were they hired prior to April 19, 2009?
Mr. Bray. Yes, sir, they were.
Mr. Green. Okay. Are you allowed to give their names and
not--I don't want you to give them out here, but after the
hearing? Are you allowed to give their names?
Mr. Bray. Absolutely, sir.
Mr. Green. I ask because there may be some incorrect
information that I would like to have an opportunity to correct
that connotes that, with reference to females, yes, you have
some. But let me go even further and ask you about minority
females. How many do you have?
Mr. Bray. Sir, I don't know that off the top of my head. I
have some data in front of me that shows minority--that shows
that we have--of all FAMS, 167 females within the organization.
Mr. Green. Would it surprise you to know that you have
zero?
Mr. Bray. Zero supervisors?
Mr. Green. SES, minority females.
Mr. Bray. No.
Mr. Green. Would it surprise you to know that you have zero
Hispanic females, zero Pacific Islanders, zero Alaskan natives?
Mr. Bray. Sir, no, but if I could comment for a minute on
that--we do have a diversity program within our organization. I
attended and we did work with the women in federal law
enforcement to do a barrier analysis on why that very--on those
issues that you are rising, have arisen within the organization
and as--and we would be happy to deliver that very analysis
study to you.
Mr. Green. Because my time is almost up, would it surprise
you to know that you have zero African-American?
Mr. Bray. SES, sir?
Mr. Green. Yes, sir, SES.
Mr. Bray. That is not correct, sir.
Mr. Green. All right. Okay. Well, I would like to, at the
end of the hearing, get that information.
Mr. Bray. We will provide you with the great statistics.
Mr. Green. Thank you. Thank you.
Mr. Carney. Okay, the chair now recognizes the gentlelady
from Ohio, Ms. Kilroy, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Kilroy. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Director, I would like to follow up on some of these
questions with respect to the hiring practices and diversity in
the ranks of the air marshal service. Do you have hiring and
retention goals for retaining a diverse employment in the air
marshal services, to receive employment in the air marshal
services?
Mr. Bray. First, it is necessary for me--our hiring is
managed by the TSA office of human capital, so they manage our
initial hiring or recruitment and our personnel, as far as pay
and those kind of matters. But we do have a very strong, I
think, diversity outreach program.
I attended, as I said earlier, the women in federal law
enforcement conference in Tucson, Arizona, recently. Sunday, I
leave to attend the National Organization of Black Law
Enforcement Executives down in Norfolk. We have a very large
contingent that attends. I think we have almost the largest
contingent from any law enforcement agency that attends these
diversity conferences.
We do that to recruit people. We do that to let everybody
know that we think we have a great organization, that you would
be valued if you work here. So we do a great deal of outreach.
We have worked with the White House initiative on
historically black colleges and universities for recruiting.
And we do have an active recruiting program.
Our issue that you are referring to as far as statistics is
the way the agency was stood up. When the agency was stood up
in 2002, we were under a mandate to quickly hire a large number
of people. And at that time, the direction that was taken was
to hire a large--was to focus on people with former law
enforcement experience. That really narrowed the pool of people
that were--who were eligible for that--our jobs.
So now we have greatly expanded our pool. So like I said,
last year, we hired 38 percent veterans. We do recruit actively
in minority programs. And so we are trying to make progress,
but we don't have that much turnover.
Ms. Kilroy. Can you explain to me quickly what your hiring
authority is vis-a-vis TSA and how that works?
Mr. Bray. Well, we are an integral part of TSA, so TSA--
last year, we used to do our own hiring under a private
contractor. Now, for efficiency of government, to enable us to
focus on our mission more fully, that was assumed by the TSA
office of human capital under another private contract, where
they recruit nationwide.
Ms. Kilroy. And who is the private contractor?
Mr. Bray. The private contractor now is Lockheed Martin.
Ms. Kilroy. In implementing the agency's operations, how
are you utilizing new threat information to modify flight
coverage goals and the flight schedules of the air marshals?
Mr. Bray. Every day, we have either in person or a
teleconference with other senior leaders throughout the federal
government to go over that very information.
And based on that, we have a transportation security
operations center who does our flight scheduling, and they also
are a 24/7 domain awareness center for all of TSA. They monitor
the aviation environment and many other environments, the
national infrastructure protection of the organization, and
they focus on the mission scheduling.
As you saw in 2006, when we had the London liquid aerosol
gel threat, on American carriers that were destined for the
United States, there was a plot to blow up airlines en route to
the United States. At that time, we had a very small handful of
federal air marshals in Great Britain.
And overnight, through the flexibility we have in our
scheduling program and the people we have out at the freedom
center, we were able to get a large number of federal air
marshals to handle all the flights from Great Britain to the
United States for a period of time until the threat subsided
with a number of arrests over there.
And we do have that flexibility. We are an intel-driven,
risk-based operation, so we do routinely, on a very routine
basis, examine where we are flying and go over our flights with
the intel community to see what areas we should be covering,
whether it is domestically or internationally.
Ms. Kilroy. And that information gets out to the air
marshals that are on the front lines?
Mr. Bray. Yes, especially for the air marshals flying
internationally, we have threat briefings for them.
Ms. Kilroy. Okay. I think my time--I yield back.
Mr. Carney. Okay.
I think we will do one quick round of questions. Votes will
be called in about 15 minutes or so; that is the last word.
And, Mr. Bray and Mr. Lord, what would you say would be the
optimal number of FAMs to have across the system?
Mr. Bray. I think in the studies--I think in the studies we
have done, it would be approximately double what we have right
now.
Mr. Carney. Approximately double? Approximately double? Mr.
Lord?
Mr. Lord. First of all, I don't have a number, but I think,
in answering that question, you have to evaluates FAMS's
contribution to providing security relative to other related
protective measures, such as hardening of cockpit doors and
arming flight crews. I don't think you can answer that question
in isolation without taking a more holistic approach to this.
Also, I always pose the question--the FAMs are really doing
their job. They are invisible to the flying public. So the
question I have is, obviously, people know they are out there.
They don't know who they are provides a deterrent value.
Could you achieve the same deterrence level, yet reduce
numbers? Kind of a different question. You know, if--since they
are invisible to the flying public, could you achieve the same
level of deterrence with a different level, whatever it is?
Mr. Carney. That was actually my next question.
What do you think, Mr. Bray? And I know you would probably
say no, but----
Mr. Bray. I would oppose that. I think that would decrease
our flexibility to be able to respond to incidents such as
either Hurricane Katrina, where the New Orleans airport was
shut down. We had to restore order down there. And when you saw
all the people that were being airlifted off the roofs and
deposited at the airport, there was no plan.
Several hundred FAMs went down there, restored order. They
also helped all these people who were either injured or infirm
get on flights out of the area so they could be helped
medically or otherwise in other areas. We would lose that
flexibility.
And I think the enhancement that you have talked about here
with the number of FAMs and our possible changes to our pay
would greatly enhance this organization.
Mr. Carney. Okay.
Mr. Adler, I was kind of struck by your narrative about you
getting called to the gate, that sort of thing, to show your
credentials. Obviously, that is horrible and it shouldn't
happen.
Now, can you provide the chair at some point very soon kind
of a list of those airlines that do it well and those who
aren't so good at protecting your anonymity?
Now, I also sit on the Transportation Infrastructure
Committee, so, you know, that really kind of steps in both of
my areas of interest. So, please, provide that. I would
certainly hate to see that that is kind of--either a problem
within an airline's policy or perhaps it is just, you know,
some desk person who doesn't really understand what is going on
here.
But if there is kind of a trend in some airlines versus
others, that we really need to know that if we are going to
protect the flying public. So I really appreciate that.
Mr. Bray, you know, following the lines of the questions in
terms of hiring minorities and females, how many, for example,
female applicants do you get annually? How many minority
applicants do you get annually?
Mr. Bray. Sir, I don't have that information in front of
me. We can provide it.
If I can segue for just a minute----
Mr. Carney. Sure.
Mr. Bray. --there is a boarding--different boarding
procedure for federal air marshals than there is for other
federal law enforcement officers. So without going any further,
I need to emphasize that. And we will get you the statistics on
our applicants.
Mr. Carney. Okay. Thank you so much.
Mr. Bilirakis?
Mr. Bilirakis. Just one question, Mr. Chairman, for the
panel, well, for Mr. Adler.
The Government Accountability Office interviewed 67 air
marshals from 11 field offices while conducting its survey. GAO
reported that all individuals interviewed commented favorably
about the workforce enhancements made by the Federal Air
Marshal Service. Please discuss the improvements your members
have experienced over the last several years.
Mr. Adler. Well, one of the issues we have been speaking
about, which is just freedom of speech in and of itself, has
been a tremendous, well, factor into increasing morale and has
improved.
Prior to Director Bray, Director Brown was on. He did a
very good job, as well. And he inherited what I have referred
to earlier as the splinted workforce. He sort of got--kind of
overcame that very repressed, sort of--you know, I refer to it
as Dean Wormer from ``Animal House'' sort of environment, where
you feel like you are under double-secret probation.
So, certainly, first and foremost, being valued for what
you do was something that came about that was a very positive
change.
I think scheduling was a big issue, and it comes back to
your earlier question, in terms of, do we need more air
marshals? You know, the big--the number-one issue we were
wrestling with, probably even prior to Dr. Bray coming on, was
the scheduling dilemma and how it impacted the air marshals in
terms of their quality of life, their health issues, leave, and
even just the attrition rate, how it would impact. And they
would say, ``Well, I am going to go to another law enforcement
component within DHS, and I will work Monday to Friday, have a
nice take-home car, and it is just a different lifestyle.''
So I would say that their commitment to working the
schedule--and some of the things that Director Bray discussed,
such as implementing training or other ground-based
assignments, so you don't have an air marshal flying 5 days
straight and just being completely exhausted.
I mean, everyone up here knows the airlines do not run on
time consistently. So I think the question--it was a question
earlier that maybe Congressman Green has asked in terms of the
down time.
It is such a crazy existence, because I have seen air
marshals literally land and have to run to catch a flight, only
to get there and then maybe find out it is delayed, or maybe
the plane isn't, in fact, in the hangar. And it is just such a
kind of ``fly by the seat of your pants'' sometimes existence
because of the nature of the airline scheduling.
So I think the improvements have been recognizing the
impact that the rough schedule has and coming up with these
other assignments, encouraging people to express their views,
whether it is the breakfast function that Director Bray does.
He also engaged us--and Director Brown did this, as well.
Director Brown set up a forum where we set up a FLEOA air
marshal working group, and we have representatives from across
the country come down and meet with the director. Director Bray
has continued that forum. That was also a very positive
improvement, in terms of the workforce there.
Mr. Carney. Any further questions?
Mr. Bilirakis. I yield back.
Mr. Carney. Okay, thank you.
Mr. Green?
Mr. Green. Surely. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bray, if you find when you peruse your statistics that
you have a dearth of female applicants, I would be interested
in knowing why. I would be interested in knowing if there has
been some conclusion that females don't want to do this type of
work. I would be interested in knowing how you go about the
process of publishing your applications. I would have any
number of questions about why you have a dearth of female
applicants.
Mr. Bray. We will get that information to you. But as I--we
did do a barrier analysis on why we don't have enough female
applicants. And we--there were many interesting points in
there. One of those is how the organization was stood up.
Another is perception of the applicants.
Mr. Green. But what does that mean, how the organization
was set up?
Mr. Bray. When there was a great emphasis on law
enforcement experience to be eligible for the job in 2002----
Mr. Green. Which would then connote a dearth of--well,
fewer females, because you have more males that are already in
the field? Is that what you are saying?
Mr. Bray. With law enforcement experience, yes, sir.
Mr. Green. Right. So you start out with a concern, if you
will, with reference to females being fairly represented in the
applicant pool.
Mr. Bray. Correct. Part of it is perception of the
applicants of the agency, that it is all just flying, and it is
very mundane, but we saw a great difference--a divide versus
the people who were--the females who are on board and doing the
job. They look upon the job very favorably. So part of it is
the communication of how we advertise and recruit.
But as far as how we do advertise the job, it goes on the
OPM Web site, opm.jobs, along with everyone else, so it is out
there for everyone to look at.
Mr. Green. Thank you.
Let me ask Mr. Lord a question rather quickly. Mr. Lord,
sir, do you maintain statistical information on the number of
female applicants or the number of females who are currently
serving?
Mr. Lord. Yes, we maintain statistics on the number of
female employees currently employed at our agency at multiple
levels of the organization.
Mr. Green. Are you familiar with the position that I called
to your attention, the SES position?
Mr. Lord. I am familiar with the position, since I am one
of them, but as far as how many female SES we have, I would
have to get that to you.
Mr. Green. Do you know of any that are African-American?
Mr. Lord. Yes.
Mr. Green. SES?
Mr. Lord. Yes.
Mr. Green. Any that are Hispanic?
Mr. Lord. Yes.
Mr. Green. Okay. Let me go back to you, Mr. Lord, with this
question. You posed the question of deterrent by virtue of the
means by which the employees actually perform their service.
And your question, your query is whether or not we might reduce
the force because of the means. Is that correct?
Mr. Lord. Yes, I just phrased the question?
Mr. Green. I would like for you to answer that question, if
you would.
Mr. Lord. Okay. I am sorry. Could you repeat it again, sir?
Mr. Green. Well, the question that you asked yourself.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Lord. What is the right level? What is the right
number?
Mr. Green. No, you made the statement. Your basic premise
was, given that they secret themselves on the plane, given that
they are not readily identifiable, because of the deterrent
impact of knowing that they may be on the plane, can we reduce
the force? I think that accurately reflects your commentary. Is
that a fair statement?
Mr. Lord. Yes, sir.
Mr. Green. Okay. Now, answer that question. You posed it.
Mr. Lord. My position was it is important to ask that
question. I would have to think about that a little more
carefully before offering any option on what is the appropriate
level. I think--but I think it is important to think about when
considering any proposal----
Mr. Green. In thinking about it, let me ask you this. If we
do this--let's assume that we impact--we maintain the same
level of deterrent, we will, in fact, as a matter of fact,
diminish the level of response because we will have fewer
people. True?
Mr. Lord. You could--that is a fair argument.
Mr. Green. Now, listen now. You are going to force me to
ask you some other questions that will cause you to say yes to
that. Now, if you have fewer people and if you have incidents
that you have no way of controlling and you have no way of
knowing where they will occur, you have to conclude, as a
matter of fact, that you are going to reduce the opportunity to
respond with a physical person who is a trained air marshal?
Mr. Lord. Yes, I will agree with that.
Mr. Green. Okay. All right.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Carney. Thank you, Mr. Green.
Ms. Kilroy?
Ms. Kilroy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As a member of the
flying public and, with this job, a rather frequently flying
public, I have got to say, I have to agree with some of the
poll participants in the poll that we received who indicate
that they place a high value on having air marshals on the
flights, and that it provides a certain measure of confidence
in the air flying public knowing that we have, I hope, a fully
staffed air marshal service.
And I certainly would not want to see us have to reopen the
kind of debates over--of whether or not we should have armed
pilots or other airline officials on planes, because they get
worried because we have a decrease in the air marshal service.
That is not a law enforcement opinion, just the opinion of
somebody who flies and has listened to some of the debate over
the years.
And I apologize if this issue has already been covered, Mr.
Chair, but the issue of communication ability between the
federal air marshals on flights or air and air-to-ground
communications, I understand that air marshals have reported
experiencing frequent failures from their personal digital
assistants, their PDA communication devices.
And I wanted to know how the air marshal service is
responding to that reported problem and makes sure that
necessary communications in the case of an incident and request
for help, that that can be there for the air marshals.
Mr. Bray?
Mr. Bray. So we do have a contract with the carrier, and
the carrier will begin issuing the new devices. And the federal
air marshals in the various offices will have an option of
several devices that they can choose.
So previously they only had one device, and that device was
last issued in 2005. It should have been replaced in 2008 at
the latest. So, for a variety of budgetary reasons, it is not
being replaced until now, but the replacement is underway.
And the good news about that is, is that now, under the
contract, we have devices that will be replaced by the vendor
every 2 years. They will no longer have the program where a FAM
is using an obsolete device.
The other ancillary portion of that is, you mentioned the
air-to-ground program, which--and, you know, we all fly, and we
are all aware that there is a commercial service being
installed on all--on most major carriers, starting now, and it
will take a couple years to be installed, but we have worked
with all the carriers and the provider of that service to get
what they call the FAMs priority service so that, if they have
an incident on the plane, they need to report to either the
federal air marshal operations center or their field office.
They will be able to do that.
Because what we are concerned about is that, if we have a
9/11, we want to be able to communicate both ways, either have
them report to us or we report to them. And, obviously, if
there is a 9/11, that service will be overwhelmed, so we have
to have an ability to cut through the chatter, if that is what
you want to call it, and give our FAMs the ability to
communicate.
So we think, with the new devices and with the services
being rolled out that we will be subscribers to, and the
priority service, that we will have a good, robust service for
the federal air marshals.
Ms. Kilroy. I think, mentioning 9/11, one of the lessons
that I think law enforcement, public officials need to take
away from that is that communications during an emergency is of
the highest importance. And interoperability and, in this case,
even between air marshal to air marshal on a flight, needs to
have a high importance.
Mr. Bray. I completely agree with you. And that is one
purpose for our--when I talked about earlier, about our freedom
center, our operations center, which is a 24/7 center in
northern Virginia, they have people from the FAA, customs and
Border Patrol, Secret Service, NORAD, others, the Department of
Defense, so we have that environmental awareness.
If any incident occurs throughout our domain, through the
aviation domain or any other domain that we are concerned with,
we get very quick reporting into the operations center. And
then part of the job is to get it back out to our federal air
marshals, our federal security directors, and everyone that was
in TSA to make them aware that something is happening in L.A.
or something has happened on a plane, and we want everyone else
to raise their awareness of that incident. So that is one of
our core missions.
Ms. Kilroy. Thank you. Appreciate that.
Yield back.
Mr. Carney. Thank you, Ms. Kilroy.
I will end my questions on this. This is for everybody in
the panel. You guys have come a long way, Mr. Bray, and I am
very pleased to say that, and you should be proud.
And I just wanted to get a sense from everyone, what do we
need to do? What else is--you know, we always know we can
always do more. What are your priorities? Where do you think we
ought to be, Mr. Lord and Mr. Adler?
So, Mr. Bray, please?
Mr. Bray. I think we have discussed them. We need to focus
on workforce enhancement. We need to continue to focus on the
ability to train our people.
Mr. Carney. Workforce enhancement, such as?
Mr. Bray. Training.
Mr. Carney. Okay.
Mr. Bray. Training, the administration proposal for 1881.
And Jon and I--Jon Adler spoke about that, to continue to build
our workforce for the future, to give them all the morale-
building items, whether it is the training, the workforce, and
continue to engage our workforce to build for the future.
We have made great progress, but we can't ever think that
we are finished. I think, as our opposition changes, as the
terrorists change their tactics, we have a training element. We
need to get that out to the workforce to make sure they are
aware of the new things that are occurring, whether it is the
bombings in Indonesia or the assaults in Mumbai, and we had
FAMs in Mumbai when that occurred.
So the first thing we do is make sure that they are okay,
that they are safe, and work with the airlines to get them out
of there.
So those are the issues I try to focus on during my tenure.
Mr. Carney. Mr. Lord?
Mr. Lord. We commend Director Bray for adopting a
continuous improvement philosophy and maintaining the 36 task
teams devoted to various improvement areas. We think that is
really important to sustain the progress that was initiated
under the former director.
Mr. Carney. Mr. Adler?
Mr. Adler. I think it is continuing with all the progress
that we have all discussed today and all the very positive
things Director Bray has done.
But in addition to it, in going back to Ranking Member
Bilirakis' comment in terms of the need for more air marshals,
we are going to fully support that, in terms of increasing the
number of bodies and the funding. That would obviously
alleviate and address some of these issues. So I think that
would certainly help, as well.
And, also--and I think, coming back to Congressman Green's
point, in terms of addressing Mr. Lord on the question of
deterrence and so forth, I think the perspective that needs to
be maintained--and I think Congressman Green hit it was, not
only are air marshals providing a deterrent effect, a role,
they are also a response vehicle to respond if something
happens. And that needs to be considered, as well.
In terms of measuring how effective they are, it is
important to keep sight on not only the scorecard in terms of
how many times or how many incidents occur, but how well
trained and able are they?
And if you look at the training, they are probably, in a
tactical sense, the best trained in federal law enforcement.
They need to maintain that level of training so they can
respond and they can do what the public expects them to do and
maintain that public confidence through superior training,
proper scheduling, taking care, and addressing health issues,
and keeping the workforce at a size that is workable, where we
don't hit the wall and suddenly collapse.
Mr. Carney. Very good.
I want you all to know that this committee and subcommittee
is very open to working with you. We want to make sure that the
flying public is safe. And we know that there are sometimes
constraints on candor, in terms of actually saying publicly
what you need, in addition to what you are allowed to have, but
don't ever hesitate to let us know that.
With that, Mr. Bilirakis?
Mr. Bilirakis. Just wanted to thank the presenters on a
very productive, informative hearing. Great questions from the
panel, as well. And we will pursue this, and we want to
continue the conversation.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Carney. Mr. Green, any further questions?
Mr. Green. No further questions, but I do appreciate the
opportunity to express my gratitude to those who serve and to
Mr. Bray. Tough job, difficult circumstances. Great
appreciation for what you do. And, of course, I am always in
awe of what the people who monitor, Mr. Lord, are capable of
providing by way of intelligence.
I thank you, each of you.
And, Mr. Adler, thank you for your comments, as well.
Mr. Carney. Ms. Kilroy?
Ms. Kilroy. --communicated and ask that you communicate
that to the air marshals who do the job, who fly every day. I
understand sometimes there may be morale issues or they may
think they are anonymous and unseen and unappreciated, but at
least today let them hear from us that that is far from the
case.
Thank you.
Mr. Carney. Okay, thank you.
And I do want to thank all three of you for your valuable
testimony and certainly members for their questions. As Mr.
Bilirakis said, there were good lines of questioning today.
The members of the subcommittee may have additional
questions for you. And if they do so, please respond in writing
quickly. Don't let it hang out there. We get a little bit antsy
about stuff like that.
But with that, we stand adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
For the Record
Prepared Opening Statement of the Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Mississippi, and Chairman,
Committee on Homeland Security
Since the tragic events of 9/11 and the increased dependence on the
Federal Air Marshal Service, the Service has faced a series of
personnel challenges including:
Staffing up from 33 Marshals to thousands;
Putting effective and well communicated personnel policies in
place that empower and aide the Marshals, not hinder;
Recognizing the variety of skill sets and experiences the
employees bring to FAMS and ensuring the effectiveness of their
training;
Ensuring the workforce can report waste, fraud, abuse and
concerns without fear of retaliation; and
Confronting on-going qualify of life issues for the growing
workforce.
Addressing these challenges has not been easy. But I think it's
safe to say that the FAMS has come a long way.
After a downward spiral with countless complaints and concerns, the
Service realized that they needed to turn the corner and fix the
considerable damage that had been done to its workforce morale and
reputation.
Steps have been taken to engage the workforce and also to produce
better policies on schedules, flight check-ins and boarding, dress
codes and other matters. While better, there is always room for
improvement.
Now, we are faced with charting a way forward.
To do so, the Service needs to properly oversee the execution of
its improved policies and refine them as necessary. FAMS must have a
proper and fair personnel system, with clear policies and adequate
tools and resources. They must continue to recruit the best and the
brightest and diversify its ranks--not only among the Air Marshals but
in Management positions.
Further, the connection and collaboration between Headquarters and
Field Offices should strengthen and stovepipes must be abolished. FAMS
must continue to communicate, engage and empower its employees.
And lastly, I would be remiss if I did not raise the fact just two
weeks ago the Full Committee passed the Transportation Security
Workforce Enhancement Act. This bill would provide employee protections
and rights to ALL employees of TSA, including the Air Marshals. All TSA
workers need to have whistleblower protections in the name of
security--so that they are able to report security concerns without
fear of losing their jobs or retaliation. They also deserve the right
to collectively bargain over items such as uniforms, access to
training, leave selection procedures and overtime--this affords them an
active voice in their workplace while providing and maintaining the
needed flexibility for scheduling and other matters by management.
Nearly 69,000 federal law enforcement officers currently have these
rights.
I look forward to listening to our witnesses' testimony today and
understanding their thoughts about the progress FAMS has made in
regards to its workforce and workforce policies. But most importantly,
I hope to learn and engage in a discussion on where we can all go from
here.
Thank you.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
