[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
TSA'S EFFORTS TO FIX ITS POOR CUSTOMER
SERVICE REPUTATION AND BECOME LEANER,
SMARTER AGENCY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION SECURITY
of the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 7, 2012
__________
Serial No. 112-97
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
79-504 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
Peter T. King, New York, Chairman
Lamar Smith, Texas Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
Daniel E. Lungren, California Loretta Sanchez, California
Mike Rogers, Alabama Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas
Michael T. McCaul, Texas Henry Cuellar, Texas
Gus M. Bilirakis, Florida Yvette D. Clarke, New York
Paul C. Broun, Georgia Laura Richardson, California
Candice S. Miller, Michigan Danny K. Davis, Illinois
Tim Walberg, Michigan Brian Higgins, New York
Chip Cravaack, Minnesota Cedric L. Richmond, Louisiana
Joe Walsh, Illinois Hansen Clarke, Michigan
Patrick Meehan, Pennsylvania William R. Keating, Massachusetts
Ben Quayle, Arizona Kathleen C. Hochul, New York
Scott Rigell, Virginia Janice Hahn, California
Billy Long, Missouri Ron Barber, Arizona
Jeff Duncan, South Carolina
Tom Marino, Pennsylvania
Blake Farenthold, Texas
Robert L. Turner, New York
Michael J. Russell, Staff Director/Chief Counsel
Kerry Ann Watkins, Senior Policy Director
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
I. Lanier Avant, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION SECURITY
Mike Rogers, Alabama, Chairman
Daniel E. Lungren, California Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas
Tim Walberg, Michigan Danny K. Davis, Illinois
Chip Cravaack, Minnesota Cedric L. Richmond, Louisiana
Joe Walsh, Illinois, Vice Chair Ron Barber, Arizona
Robert L. Turner, New York Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
Peter T. King, New York (Ex (Ex Officio)
Officio)
Amanda Parikh, Staff Director
Natalie Nixon, Deputy Chief Clerk
Vacant, Minority Subcommittee Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Statements
The Honorable Mike Rogers, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Alabama, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation
Security....................................................... 1
The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Transportation Security........................................ 2
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Homeland Security.............................................. 4
The Honorable Joe Walsh, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Illinois:
Prepared Statement............................................. 5
Witness
Mr. John S. Pistole, Administrator, Transportation Security
Administration:
Oral Statement................................................. 6
Prepared Statement............................................. 8
For the Record
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Homeland Security:
Letter From Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson and Hon. Nita M.
Lowey........................................................ 16
Letter From John S. Pistole.................................... 17
TSA'S EFFORTS TO FIX ITS POOR CUSTOMER SERVICE REPUTATION AND BECOME A
LEANER, SMARTER AGENCY
----------
Thursday, June 7, 2012
U.S. House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Transportation Security,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in
Room 311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Mike Rogers
[Chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Rogers, Walberg, Walsh, Turner,
Jackson Lee, Davis, Richmond, and Thompson.
Mr. Rogers. This hearing of the Committee on Homeland
Security Subcommittee on Transportation Security will come to
order.
This subcommittee is meeting today to examine TSA's efforts
to fix its poor customer service reputation and become a
leaner, smarter organization.
I want to thank everyone for being at this hearing and I
want to thank particularly Mr. Pistole, the administrator, for
being here. Sir, you have got a tough job and we appreciate
your service.
I think we can agree that every person in this great
country of ours has the right to criticize and complain about
TSA. But what sets you and I apart from those that just want to
criticize the TSA is that we have the obligation to fix the
mess.
I know for a fact how dedicated you are to your security,
to our security, and your distinguished service to our Nation.
But the fact is, over the last 2 years, progress at TSA has
come at a snail's pace and in some ways has gone backwards.
It is not enough that the agency is becoming more risk-
based. The American people need to see immediate changes that
impact them. For example, while the PreCheck program has gotten
off to a successful start, we are talking about something that
does not benefit most of the average travelers.
So let us start talking about what we can do to fix the
broken and outdated policies that do affect most people.
On Monday, Congressman Walsh and I visited Chicago O'Hare
Airport. We met with travelers afterwards to discuss their
thoughts on TSA. The overwhelming majority of those that
attended the meeting expressed frustration that 10 years after
9/11, the TSA is still collecting pocketknives; it is still
collecting water bottles; it is still collecting pill cutters
with razor blades; and, of course, the travelers are subjected
to invasive searches and loss of privacy.
The fact is, these folks are right and reasonably are fed
up. Mr. Pistole, in my view, the prohibited items list is the
place for you to start taking immediate action to make changes.
Before 9/11, travelers were trained to cooperate with
hijackers in those days. History has proven that if you
cooperated, the plane would land safely and they would get
their money or their prisoners out of jail.
We all know 9/11 changed that mentality. As we adapt and
evolve to meet the threats of post-9/11 world, so do the
terrorists who continue to evolve in their tactics.
The problem is that TSA is too far behind the curve to see
what is coming next. The truth is, Mr. Pistole, I believe you
are too bogged down in managing an oversized workforce to
mitigate the next potential threat.
That is a chilling reality and despite our efforts here,
your technology procurement process is still a mess.
In the case of the TSA's new credential authentication
technology, all signs point to what I believe is another
wasteful investment. This subcommittee will hold a separate
hearing on that technology in 2 weeks. We need to make sure our
transportation system is as secure as possible at the lowest
cost possible and with the least intrusion to the American
taxpayer.
With that, I now recognize the Ranking Member of the
subcommittee, the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee for 5
minutes for her opening statement.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much and to
the Members who are present and to the Ranking Member and the
full committee Chairperson of the full committee, Mr. Pistole,
good morning.
I thank the Chairman for this opportunity and I welcome
Administrator Pistole and acknowledge that this month marks
your 2-year anniversary at TSA. Might I also congratulate you
on a great event that you just recently had with your family
and wish them well.
I thank you for your leadership and I look forward to
continuing to work with you and I also, Mr. Chairman, would
like to thank you for holding what I hope will be an
informative hearing.
Let me acknowledge as we all do in this business that I
have before the Judiciary Committee the attorney general, and
so I will be looking to be in this hearing for as long as I can
and if Mr. Pistole would accept the fact that I may be not in
two places at once but have to be in two places for the
responsibilities that I have.
But it is important for us to recognize the leadership of
Mr. Pistole and identify opportunities where TSA can do better.
I consider this committee one of the hard-working committees, I
would like to say hardest-working, and as well that there is a
collegiality between myself and the Chairperson, we look
forward to working together on a number of issues.
I take issue, however, with the title of today's hearing
because I do believe that the 40,000-plus numbers of TSO
officers are in fact the majority committed to the service of
this Nation.
As I have traveled throughout the Nation's airports, both
small, medium, and large, and encountered a number of TSOs and
spoken to them about their commitment or how long they have
been. A large number, of course, rose to the occasion after 9/
11 as this agency was being created. Many of them are former
law enforcement officers. Others are former members of the
United States military who just could not sit home while their
Nation was in crisis.
That commitment is still present and I believe what is most
important is that we instill that commitment and dedication to
service to all of the new recruits.
I would ask this committee, would we consider missteps in
the United States military as a cause for privatization or
suggesting that there are too many persons and that we should
indicate it is too cumbersome and difficult?--when we think of
the vast numbers of men and women of the United States military
in places far away.
For the most part, the Members of Congress recognize that
it is important for them to be present where they are.
So I hope that we can view the Transportation Security
Agency as our agency. I have said repeatedly we need increased
professional development, we need the opportunity for promotion
and I think, Mr. Pistole, you have agreed with me on that.
We certainly need to weed out those who are not adhering to
the duties that they are mandated to do. When we find fractures
in the system, we need to be able to own up to it, stand up to
it and get rid of it. I hope that is what you are committed to
doing.
But our transportation security system is not a call center
or a help desk in a department store. I think we would be
remiss if we did not recognize TSA's growth and maturity since
being established in the aftermath of 9/11. Let us ask
ourselves with the elimination of TSA as proposed by many of my
friends on the other side of the aisle, such as the
Appropriations Committee--work would make us more secure.
I remind everyone constantly, 9/11 was pre-TSA. I am
thankful that we believe, most of us, that we can move forward
and improve this organization. We cannot ignore that TSA
expands beyond our checkpoint screening operations and has
successfully instituted security programs such as Secure
Flight, which vets passengers against a no-fly list before
boarding a plane.
But there needs to be greater cooperation. No doubt there
needs to be cooperation with airlines and airports. We need to
be looking at the ingress and egress of airports where
individuals can bypass TSA because of so many entrances and
become a security threat. TSA does not walk the airports, per
se. They are at the screening sites.
Risk-based screening, a shift on the passenger screening
experience as TSA evolves and focuses more time on those
individuals it knows the least about, that is important and the
use of intelligence.
The Transportation Security Grant program, which requires
TSA's expertise on mass transit vulnerabilities and funding
priorities across all high-risk State and local jurisdictions--
in my own community of Houston, this partnership has been
vital.
These are just examples of how TSA has established itself
beyond just our checkpoint screening. The National goal of
ensuring a safe aviation environment can only be achieved
through bipartisanship in the Legislative branch and
cooperation between the Legislative branch and the Executive
branch.
As I conclude, I want to look forward to securing from this
hearing today, Mr. Administrator, clarifying some of the points
discussed earlier this year by TSA officials: The vetting of
workers at airports; privatization of Transportation Security
Workers; weeding out the bad apples, such as incidents that
occurred in the last 2 weeks; the status of TSA's repair
station security role; and the role and responsibilities for
surface inspectors at TSA, and whether or not we are working
with the industry to secure such.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to this hearing and I am
hoping that we will have the opportunity to leave this place
with a roadmap--a continued roadmap--for the professional
service of TSA officers and TSA that are in the front lines,
along with Federal air marshals, in the front lines of securing
the Nation's future.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your indulgence and I yield
back.
Mr. Rogers. I thank the gentlelady.
The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member of the full
committee, Mr. Thompson from Mississippi.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I welcome
Mr. Pistole to our committee and look forward to his testimony.
Mr. Pistole, let me start by commending you for your
decision over a year ago to grant collective bargaining rights
to Transportation Security Officers at TSA. As proven by the
performance of other Federal security officers, collective
bargaining does not diminish our security. Collective
bargaining can improve workforce morale and productivity and
this will positively impact TSA's ability to fulfill its
mission to secure our transportation systems.
It is important for all of us not to forget that TSOs are
the front-line defense in aviation security. Therefore, we must
ensure that these workers are not only properly trained, but
are afforded appropriate workplace protections. TSA has come a
long way since it was established in 2001. Efforts to improve
TSO's morale would lead to increased capacity and
professionalism in their ranks and in security.
As you know, Administrator Pistole, I have called on you to
reach an agreement on a contract and renew that call to you
today. I would also like to take this opportunity to note the
administrator's progress on efforts made to improve screening
at checkpoint procedures, even though we have yet to pass an
authorization bill for TSA in the House during the 112th
Congress.
Although TSA faces many operational challenges, it also has
made progress on initiatives that are aimed at supporting its
mission. However, as the authorizing committee for TSA, it is
our duty to produce legislation that ensures proper funding
levels and set forth critical programs in Federal law.
Finally, I would like to point out that TSA has not
provided Congress a plan for TWIC renewals. As you know, there
are some 2.1 million people in this country with TWIC cards and
those renewals for those individuals are coming up over the
next year or so will be very crucial. We marked up a bill that
addressed this in the full committee yesterday.
I would encourage you to move forward with a plan that
extends the deadline for renewals until DHS has held up its end
of the bargain on deploying readers for the cards. I again say,
Mr. Chairman, it was Congress' intent that when the TWIC
program was approved that the readers were just a matter of
course. But we are some years later and we are not there. So
clearly, we have a problem, and I would not want that problem
become a burden of the employees who have had to pay $132.50 to
get their TWIC card, which at this point is nothing more than a
glorified flashcard.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. I thank the gentleman.
The other Members of the committee are reminded that
opening statements may be submitted for the record.
[The statement of Hon. Walsh follows:]
Statement of Hon. Joe Walsh
June 7, 2012
Thank you Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing today. I also want
to thank the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Administrator
John Pistole for testifying.
I recently held a town hall in my district, the 8th of Illinois,
with Subcommittee Chairman Mike Rogers (AL-03). We heard from numerous
constituents on their opinions of TSA, the majority of which were what
I would categorize as ``highly unfavorable.'' I recognize that many
people who attend these types of events do not do so to praise the
Government; they come to complain. However, if I did not believe there
were enough people with something to complain about in my district, I
would not have held this event and invited Chairman Rogers there. What
I heard was not surprising: Overwhelmingly, my constituents complained
of inconsistencies, bad attitudes, and other inappropriate behavior by
Federal transportation screening officers (TSOs), and the list
continues. According to my constituents, TSA and its officers are not
protecting us nearly as much as they are harassing or inconveniencing
us.
What I have surmised from this event and my own experiences flying
in and out of O'Hare National Airport almost every week is that TSOs
are not doing their work as well as they should, and Americans know it.
What bothers me most, however, is that TSA seems to be doing nothing to
improve either the work of TSOs or the administration's tarnished
image.
When I was elected to Congress, I took an oath to faithfully
discharge the duties of office. One of those duties is to ensure
Federal agencies are spending the taxpayer dollar wisely. If TSA cannot
find a way to do their job to the better satisfaction of the Americans
that pay their salaries, I will be leading the charge to find ways to
meet our Nation's security needs.
Again, thank you for testifying before us today, and I look forward
to your response.
Thank you again Mr. Chairman for what you did in the 8th
Congressional District of Illinois and for holding this hearing today.
Mr. Rogers. Again, we are pleased today to have a
distinguished witness before us, Administrator Pistole. John
Pistole has been the administrator of the Transportation
Security Administration at the Department of Homeland Security
since 2010. As TSA administrator he oversees the management of
approximately 60,000 employees, the security operations of more
than 450 Federalized airports throughout the United States, the
Federal Air Marshal Service, and the security for highways,
railroads, ports, mass transit, and systems and pipelines. No
small job.
The Chairman now is happy to recognize Administrator
Pistole for his opening statement for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JOHN S. PISTOLE, ADMINISTRATOR, TRANSPORTATION
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Pistole. Thank you, Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member
Thompson, and distinguished Members of the committee. I
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today.
As we know, TSA's goal is to maximize transportation
security and stay ahead of evolving threats, while protecting
privacy and facilitating the flow of legitimate trade and
commerce.
Chairman Rogers, I would respectfully disagree with your
assessments for reasons that I will outline. I think we have
made significant progress over the last 2 years, but let me
start with the context that this hearing is taking place in.
So this is my first hearing since the disruption last month
of the terrorist plot--the latest plot--against the United
States, which ended up being an intelligence coup for not only
U.S. Government, but foreign security intelligence services.
But--and critical here--it shows the determination of
terrorists to use unique designs, constructs, and concealment
of non-metallic devices, either on a person as a suicide
bomber, or in cargoes we have seen, to blow up a U.S.-bound
airliner.
This incident highlights the challenges that the men and
women of TSA face every day, to keep safe the 1.7 million or so
travelers who fly within the United States and from the United
States from the 450 airports while we strive to provide the
most effective security in the most efficient way.
We are taking a number of steps to achieve those goals.
That is why we are continuing to move away from the one-size-
fits-all construct that was stood up after 9/11, using
intelligence, technology, and training to accomplish this
critical mission.
Now, are each of the over 600 million people that we screen
each year, or over the 6 billion people that we have screened
since our rollout in May 2002, completely satisfied with the
manner in which we accomplish our mission? No, obviously not;
but the vast majority are.
We have learned where and how we can modify procedures
without compromising security. That is why we are transforming
who TSA is, and how we accomplish our mission through these
risk-based security initiatives, including modified, less
intrusive physical screening of World War II veterans on honor
flights, children 12 and under, from last fall, and now
passengers 75 and older just in the last month.
TSA pre-checks the Trusted Traveler Program, which was
mentioned, with nearly 1.5 million people, pre-screened
passengers, thus far, including a number of Members of
Congress, going quickly through modified checkpoint screening,
because we know more about you, about them, based on their
voluntary sharing of information with airlines or with global
entry--pilots, who are of course the most trusted persons on
the aircraft; and in the future flight attendants, members of
the armed forces who fight for our freedoms, members of the
intelligence community.
Now, we are exploring how we can expand this group of
trusted travelers to include many others based on the risk-
based, intel-driven premise that the vast majority of travelers
are not terrorists and simply want to get from point A to point
B safely.
So how are we accomplishing this transformation? In
addition to seeking innovations in technology and expanding our
canine program, we are focusing on our most valuable resource,
our people.
Last fall I announced two important changes at our
headquarters to promote excellence in the workplace to
complement the new Office of Professional Responsibility, which
I set up when I came over from the FBI 2 years ago.
These changes are designed to inculcate the three
expectations I have of every TSA employee: Hard work,
professionalism, and integrity; and, to ensure accountability
when we don't meet those expectations.
So first, we created the Office of Training and Workforce
Engagement to centralize leadership and technical training
programs. Second, we expanded our ombudsman and travel
engagement offices and efforts to focus on our proactive
outreach with the traveling public.
So at TSA we employed a workforce as diverse as the
traveling public we serve. Approximately 23 percent of our
employees have served our Nation honorably in uniform through
prior military experience. Attrition was 7.2 percent in fiscal
year 2011, contrary to some of these reports that we hear out
there. This is a reduction of over two-thirds over the last 5
years.
Recognizing communications as integral to TSA's success, we
are providing opportunities to build these skills. We are
providing a tactical communications, or TACCOM, course to every
officer, supervisor, and manager by the end of this year with
over 30,000 officers already trained. Some key concepts and
strategies of TACCOM include active listening, including
empathy, using voice to communicate clearly, and avoiding the
tendency to trade negative comment for negative comment.
Training officials have received strong positive feedback
from many officers who apply this training to their jobs.
Complementing this training, additional training on the
continuing education opportunities available to our workforce
at community colleges close to where they work, including
schools in Alabama, Texas, Mississippi, and other States. Since
our associates program became fully operational in 2010,
approximately 2,800 TSA personnel have enrolled.
In April we started specialized classes at the Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center in Glynco, Georgia, designed to
incorporate both leadership and technical skills and
expectations for supervisory security officers.
We have also established a disability multicultural
division within TSA, which is responsible for engaging members
of these communities in a proactive fashion.
Then last December, of course, we launched TSA Cares to
assist travelers with disabilities and medical conditions prior
to getting to the airport.
So in closing, as we strive to foster excellence in the TSA
workforce and improve the overall travel experience for all
Americans through risk-based security initiatives, we continue
to carry out our core mission of providing the most effective
security in the most efficient way.
Thank you, Chairman, for the opportunity to appear before
you today.
[The statement of Mr. Pistole follows:]
Prepared Statement of John S. Pistole
June 7, 2012
Good morning Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member Jackson Lee, and
distinguished Members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify today about the Transportation Security
Administration's (TSA) on-going efforts to foster continued excellence
in the TSA workforce and to make air passengers' experience at the
checkpoint more efficient without compromising security.
The TSA workforce remains vigilant in carrying out TSA's mission
every day. To do so, TSA employs risk-based, intelligence-driven
measures to deter and prevent terrorist attacks and to reduce
vulnerabilities in the Nation's transportation systems. These measures
create a multi-layered system of transportation security to mitigate
risk. We continue to evolve our security approach based on intelligence
by examining the procedures and technologies we use, how specific
security procedures are carried out, and how screening is conducted.
The TSA workforce operates on the front-line in executing the
agency's transportation security responsibilities in support of the
Nation's counterterrorism efforts. These responsibilities include
security screening of passengers and baggage at over 450 airports in
the United States that facilitate air travel for 1.8 million people per
day; vetting more than 14 million passenger reservations and over 13
million transportation workers against the terrorist watch list each
week; and conducting security regulation compliance inspections and
enforcement activities at airports, for domestic and foreign air
carriers, and for air cargo screening operations throughout the United
States and at last point of departure locations internationally.
The transformation of TSA headquarters functions, which I announced
last fall, included two important components to promote excellence
within the TSA workforce and to address the needs of the traveling
public. A new Office of Training and Workforce Engagement (TWE) was
created to centralize technical, leadership, and workforce programs
that were previously dispersed throughout the agency and to promote
processes that engage our employees and empower them to execute TSA's
mission. The Office of Special Counselor was expanded to the Office of
Civil Rights and Liberties, Ombudsman and Traveler Engagement (CRL/OTE)
to ensure that employees and the traveling public are treated in a
respectful and lawful manner, consistent with Federal laws and
regulations protecting privacy and civil liberties, affording redress,
governing freedom of information, and prohibiting discrimination and
reprisal while promoting diversity and inclusion.
maintaining a first-rate workforce
Before discussing the initiatives being introduced by the new TWE
and CRL/OTE program offices, I want to stress that excellence in the
workplace begins with a dedicated and professional workforce. While
technology and instruction manuals support our efforts, it is our
people that protect travelers. Public service requires public trust and
demands adherence to the highest ethical and personal conduct
standards. As public servants charged with protecting the Nation's
vital transportation systems, we owe the traveling public nothing less.
All aspects of our workforce regimen--hiring, promotion, retention,
training, proactive compliance inspections, investigations and
adjudications--are driven by adherence to the highest ethical
standards.
TSA employs a diverse workforce that reflects the traveling public
we serve. In addition, approximately 23 percent of our employees have
served our Nation honorably in uniform through prior military service
and our commitment to recruiting and hiring veterans continues, as TSA
works with key stakeholders towards that end. We are also proud of the
dedication our workforce has to the mission. The agency's Voluntary
Attrition Rate, including full-time and part-time employees, was 7.2
percent in fiscal year 2011. This rate is a significant decrease from
18 percent in fiscal year 2004. As TSA marks its 10th anniversary, we
are also pleased to report the average length of service for the
Transportation Security Officer (TSO) workforce is approximately 6
years.
training initiatives improve workforce capabilities
A dedicated TSA workforce assures the traveling public that they
are protected by a multi-layered system of transportation security that
mitigates risk. An effective workforce must be properly trained and
good management is a key ingredient in preserving a motivated and
skilled workforce. TSA's new training office has implemented several
new initiatives to accomplish this objective.
Leaders at Every Level.--TSA has implemented the Leaders at Every
Level (LEL) initiative, a structured process designed to identify
exceptional leaders at every level of TSA, from TSOs to Federal
Security Directors at the airports as well as Headquarters managers.
The goal is to identify traits of these exceptional leaders that can be
modeled for all leaders and employees through example and training.
Since its inception last year, LEL has used a rigorous process to
identify 284 exceptional leaders across all levels of TSA to act as a
resource for Senior Leadership to inform their initiatives and
decisions. Specifically, we have created a 1-year detail position
within the Office of Human Capital for an LEL selectee to provide field
insights and experience; two LEL selectees were tapped to serve as
Subject Matter Experts in informing the new supervisor's training
course; and all exceptional leaders were asked to provide leadership
stories that will be shared agency-wide to model desired leadership
characteristics for the next generation of agency leaders. Moving
forward, we intend to provide further opportunities for Senior
Leadership to tap into the LELs' unique insights and empower LELs to
directly reach out and support their colleagues throughout TSA.
In addition, TSA has implemented a new four-tier performance
management program for non-TSOs. This effort enables the workforce to
actively engage in developing their annual performance goals in
collaboration with their supervisors while promoting two-way
communication between employees and their supervisors throughout the
performance year. This program ultimately provides a mechanism to
proactively identify opportunities to improve employee performance.
Communications Skills Development Course.--Communications is
paramount to TSA's success, and the agency is providing its officers
with training opportunities to improve their communications skills with
the travelling public. A course titled ``TACCOM''--an acronym for
Tactical Communications--is an interactive communications skills
development course that will be delivered to every officer, supervisor
and manager by the end of this year.
TSA's headquarters training officials have received many
unsolicited testimonials from those who have completed the TACCOM
course, highlighting how the principles, tools, and techniques covered
during this course have not only helped employees on the job, but also
in their personal life. To date, almost 60 percent of the nearly 50,000
employees who will be required to participate in this 1-day 8-hour
instructor-facilitated training course have completed it, and the
feedback continues to be very positive.
Emphasis Upon Supervision.--In July 2012, TSA will also launch a
new course titled ``Essentials of Supervising Screening Operations
(ESSO)'' for Supervisory Transportation Security Officers (STSOs) only.
The ESSO course is designed to incorporate both technical and
leadership expectations and operational responsibilities for STSOs.
This course will help STSOs understand their individual leadership
strengths and weaknesses and identify the most effective ways to
communicate with each person they come in contact with. STSOs will also
have an opportunity to strengthen their customer service skills by
understanding the need to model appropriate interactions with their
team, the traveling public, and stakeholders.
The learning objective for the customer service module, as well as
the ESSO course overall, is to demonstrate how important it is for
STSOs to lead by example, and how to provide effective feedback to
their team members.
crl/ote promotes policy of inclusion
As mentioned previously, TSA's new CRL/OTE office is responsible
for ensuring that TSA employees and the traveling public are treated in
a fair and lawful manner, consistent with Federal laws and regulations
protecting privacy and civil liberties, affording redress, governing
freedom of information and prohibiting discrimination and reprisal,
while promoting diversity and inclusion.
As a result of the transformation, the role of the ombudsman has
been heightened to now report directly to the administrator. While the
ombudsman is primarily focused on providing neutral, informal, and
confidential problem resolution services to employees for issues,
concerns, and conflicts involving TSA policies or personnel, the
ombudsman is also available to address passenger concerns.
We also established a new Disability and Multicultural Division
within CRL/OTE by merging our disability and multicultural programs
that were in two different offices. This new division is responsible
for ensuring, in collaboration with the DHS Office for Civil Rights and
Civil Liberties (CRCL), that TSA security screening policies,
procedures, and practices comply with all applicable laws, regulations,
Executive Orders, and policies and do not discriminate against
travelers on the basis of disability, race, ethnicity, national origin,
religion, or gender. It is also responsible for developing, managing,
and strengthening partnerships and outreach with community leaders from
disability- and multicultural-related interest groups, DHS Components,
the DOD Wounded Warrior Program, and the CRCL. CRL/OTE provides advice
on the impact or potential impact of new and existing screening
procedures on members of the disability and multicultural communities,
and collaborates with CRCL and the appropriate TSA offices to mitigate
these impacts.
``TSA Cares''.--TSA strives to provide the highest level of
security while ensuring that all passengers are treated with dignity
and respect. The agency works regularly with a broad coalition of
disability and medical condition advocacy groups to help understand
their needs and adapt screening procedures accordingly. All travelers
may ask to speak to a TSA supervisor if questions about screening
procedures arise while at the security checkpoint.
Last December, TSA launched ``TSA Cares,'' a new helpline number
designed to assist travelers with disabilities and medical conditions
prior to getting to the airport. Travelers may call the TSA Cares toll-
free number with questions about screening policies and procedures as
well as what to expect at the security checkpoint. When a passenger
with a disability or medical condition calls TSA Cares, a
representative will provide assistance either with information about
screening that is relevant to the passenger's specific disability or
medical condition or the passenger may be referred to disability
experts at TSA. This additional level of personal communication helps
ensure that even those who do not travel often are aware of our
screening policies before they arrive at the airport.
Since its inception, TSA has provided information to all travelers
through its TSA Contact Center (TCC) and Customer Service Managers in
airports Nation-wide. TSA Cares will serve as an additional, dedicated
resource for passengers with disabilities, medical conditions or other
circumstances, or their loved ones who want to prepare for the
screening process prior to flying.
Expanded TCC Hours.--In an effort to further enhance our support
for travelers, we recently expanded the hours of the TCC. The TCC can
provide information in response to questions, concerns, or complaints
regarding security procedures; reports and claims of lost, stolen, or
damaged items; and programs and policies. TCC operators are trained to
address passengers' questions about screening in order to resolve
passengers' concerns. The expanded hours are now Monday--Friday, 8
a.m.-11 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST); and weekends and Federal
holidays, 9 a.m.-8 p.m. EST. In fiscal year 2011, the traveling public
contacted the TCC more than 750,000 times.
rbs and tsa precheck continue to expand
As you know, last Fall TSA began developing a strategy for enhanced
use of intelligence and other information to enhance a risk-based
security (RBS) approach in all facets of transportation, including
passenger screening, air cargo, and surface transportation. At its
core, the concept of RBS demonstrates a progression of the work TSA has
been doing throughout its first decade of service to the traveling
public. Our objective is to mitigate risk in a way that effectively
balances security measures with privacy, civil rights, and civil
liberties concerns while both promoting the safe movement of people and
commerce and guarding against a deliberate attack against our
transportation systems.
RBS in the passenger screening context allows our dedicated TSOs to
focus more attention on those travelers we believe are more likely to
pose a risk to our transportation network while providing expedited
screening to those we consider pose less risk. Through various RBS
initiatives, TSA is moving away from a one-size-fits-all security model
and closer to its goal of providing the most effective transportation
security in the most efficient way possible.
The most widely known risk-based security enhancement we are
putting in place is TSA PreCheckTM. Since first implementing
this idea last fall, the program has been expanded to 15 airports,
making it possible for eligible passengers flying from these airports
to experience expedited security screening through TSA
PreCheckTM. The feedback we've been getting is consistently
positive. TSA pre-screens TSA PreCheckTM passengers each
time they fly through participating airports. If the indicator embedded
in their boarding pass reflects eligibility for expedited screening,
the passenger is able to use the PreCheckTM lane. Currently,
U.S. citizens flying domestically who are qualified frequent fliers of
American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, and Alaska Airlines, or members of
U.S. Customs and Border Protection's (CBP) trusted traveler programs,
such as Global Entry, may be eligible for expedited screening at select
checkpoints. TSA is actively working with other major air carriers such
as United Airlines, US Airways, and Jet Blue to expand both the number
of participating airlines and the number of airports where expedited
screening through TSA PreCheckTM is provided. By the end of
2012, TSA plans to have TSA PreCheckTM operating at many of
the Nation's busiest airports.
TSA PreCheckTM travelers are able to divest fewer items,
which may include leaving on their shoes, jacket, and light outerwear,
and may enjoy other modifications to the standard screening process. As
always, TSA will continue to incorporate random and unpredictable
security measures throughout the security process. At no point are TSA
PreCheckTM travelers guaranteed expedited screening.
conclusion
As we strive to foster excellence in the TSA workforce and continue
to seek ways of improving the overall travel experience for the
traveling public through risk-based security initiatives, we must
always remember that our success is defined, in large part, by the
professionalism and dedication to duty of our people. Whether it is for
business or for pleasure, the freedom to travel from place to place is
fundamental to our way of life, and to do so securely is a goal to
which everyone at TSA is fully committed. Thank you for the opportunity
to appear before you today. I am pleased to address any questions you
may have.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Administrator.
As we go into the questions period I want to remind the
Members we will take as many rounds of questions as you want to
have, but I want to adhere to the 5-minute rule. I will enforce
it on myself and everybody else. I just want you to know we
will nudge you to ask questions as many times as you want to
ask, but we are going to stay to the 5-minute rule.
I will start with my questions first. Mr. Pistole, you
know, I see in my town hall meetings, and again, I mentioned a
few minutes ago, I was in Chicago O'Hare this Monday. I am just
telling you, it is palpable. The American people are just
really disgusted and outraged with the department that they see
is bloated and inefficient.
You and I talk on a regular basis. You know I have shared
with you privately that the department has got a bad image
problem. My question to you is why can't it move more quickly
to remedy these? You gave a laundry list of things there that
are initiatives that are in place. But it is moving at a
snail's pace. Why?
Mr. Pistole. Well, thank you, Chairman, for recognizing
that we are making progress, just not at the pace that the
American people would like to see.
Mr. Rogers. Not just like to see. It is unacceptable.
Mr. Pistole. Well, I disagree with that, Mr. Chairman,
respectfully from the standpoint of, if we put something in
place too quickly, as we have been so criticized over the years
for, say, rolling out technology before we got it right, or new
protocols before we got it right.
If it implicates security in a negative way, then that is
the worst outcome, because if terrorists can exploit a
vulnerability because of something that we rushed to get out,
then that doesn't serve any of us.
Well, the bottom line is we have to provide the best
possible security. The question is how can we do that in the
most professional way, the most efficient way? That is why I
appreciate working with the committee to say these risk-based
security initiatives that we are taking are making a
difference.
I think if you ask any of the 1.5 million people who have
been through PreCheck, including, again, a number of folks here
in the room, I think they would say it is a very positive
experience. It is a step in the right direction, and we are
working aggressively to try to expand that population base.
Mr. Rogers. Again, I acknowledge the list of programs that
it has recently started are good. But they should have been
started earlier. They need to be moved along, a much more rapid
pace.
You have also had me talk with you privately about how
strongly I feel that the department is bloated with personnel.
I am of the opinion it could reduce its ranks by 30 percent to
40 percent, and still be able to do the job just as effectively
if you had control over who the remaining 60 percent or 70
percent of the people were.
I also believe that if we had that leaner, smaller
workforce, the public would have greater confidence, because
the public is upset when they go in the airport and see all
these people standing around doing nothing. Then the ones they
do interact with seem unprofessional.
I feel like that if we had a smaller workforce, it would be
easier for you to get them professionally trained, because it
would be a smaller group of people. The savings, you realize,
from making those reductions, would pay for the training.
You just mentioned that you would like to see a more
professional and efficient workforce. We all would. My question
to you is: Do you agree that we could reduce the workforce by
30 percent, and still be able to do the job if you got to pick
the people?
Mr. Pistole. Well, that is a very challenging proposition
from a number of standpoints. So the fact is, after the
Congress, in the enabling legislation said, ``Go out and stand
up this workforce in a year's time,'' so TSA went out and hired
50,000 people in a year's time, and had them out at the
checkpoints working within that year's time--huge undertaking.
Mr. Rogers. I agree.
Mr. Pistole. So the challenge now is then, how do we move
forward in the second decade of TSA to address those concerns
that you have raised? I would note that most people who would
come to a town hall on something like that are probably not
there to compliment something. Most people who want to show up
for something want to offer constructive criticism or
otherwise.
Mr. Rogers. I hear it everywhere. I mean, family get-
togethers, church. I mean, people--as soon as you mention
``TSA,'' a light bulb goes off, and people start venting their
anger. You know, I have talked with you about--it is not only a
problem with the American people being upset. You have got an
image problem in the Congress.
Half the Congress wants to just get rid of the department,
because they think it is useless. You and I know it is not the
case. I mean, you have done some very good things, some very
effective programs.
The truth is we have to have airport screening. We have to
have our port security at our sea ports, our trucking systems,
our pipelines. But until we get the department to where the
American people have confidence in it, you got a big problem.
Mr. Pistole. I agree, Chairman. I appreciate the concern. I
believe that these initiatives that we have undertaken that are
involving more and more people, and as we try to expand it to
the less-frequent travelers, those everyday travelers, we have
seen record enrollment in global entry, that anybody can sign
up for, $100 for 5 years. They are eligible at 15 airports now
to go through----
Mr. Rogers. Those are good programs. I want to get back to
my question. My time is almost up. Do you agree that you could
dramatically reduce your workforce now that it is not the first
year--you had a decade--that you could dramatically reduce the
46,000 personnel that you have got as screeners, and still do
the job just as effectively, if not more professionally and
effectively?
Mr. Pistole. No, I don't agree with that. That is a huge
number. That would take a significant assessment on the one
hand. If the question is how would that in practicality--so it
is good to talk about theoretically, and say, ``Yes, it could
do that.''
Mr. Rogers. My time is expired. I recognize the Ranking
Member for any questions she may have.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the Chairman very much.
I want to make the Chairman happy, Mr. Pistole. The thing
that I have said to you over and over again--and as you well
know, I speak quickly and I am going to be pointed in my
questions. I just want you to say, ``Yes.''
You have got to tell TSA's story. I have said that over and
over again. We have got to stop being shy, and add to the list
of horror stories--which, they do exist as you well know--some
of the great examples of actions by TSA agents, TSOs at the
gate helping passengers, being sensitive to the elderly. The
story has to be told.
Can I just ask a simple question? Do you see that as
valuable to do, and will you be looking forward to try, and
doing more of that--when I say ``you''--your team?
Mr. Pistole. Yes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. All right. Let me move forward. As you
know, the Appropriations Committee has provided out of your
dollars, $15 million above the President's request for
privatized screening operations.
You have testified that operating a dual public-private
model cost taxpayers more than if the entire system is
Federalized. Do you recommend that $15 million at issue, and
could it be directed to enhance other security operations?
Mr. Pistole. Well, there are a number of answers to that,
Ranking Member. As you know, the bottom line is, if there was
additional money available for other security programs, whether
in surface or whatever it may be, that would obviously be
helpful. But the whole issue of the privatized airports, we are
working through those issues now in terms of applications. The
bottom line is----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Did you say that that dual system would
cost the taxpayers more?
Mr. Pistole. It does currently, yes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. All right. Thank you, Mr. Pistole. The
issue of surface inspectors, the question of the program,
surface inspector program, we had testimony here last week that
we can do a better job. But if the surface inspector program
were to be cut today by $20 million, how would that hinder the
mission of the program?
Mr. Pistole. Well, two of the key accomplishments in areas
that have provided tangible security results from the surface
transportation inspectors has been the reduction in the toxic
inhalation hazard, from freight rail, including within a mile
of where we are sitting right now, that over the last several
years, because of TSA working with industry, have been able to
reduce those toxic hazards in the freight cars. Again, just
close by here. That is one area.
Another area is the base assessment that we have worked
with metropolitan transit authorities to enhance their security
in a more efficient way by focusing on the key vulnerabilities,
addressing----
Ms. Jackson Lee. So the $20 million would undermine the
progress. Would you commit to me as well of engaging with
industry to make sure the surface inspectors are trained to the
industry, or to the rail system that they are looking at?
Mr. Pistole. Yes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Let us go to the Known Crewmember Pilot
Program. We know that the Senate and other Members have joined
in asking for flight attendants to be included in that. In
light of the bipartisan, bicameral support for the inclusion of
flight attendants in a Known Crewmember Program, will you
commit today to use your executive authority to expand the
program accordingly, review it, and see how that could be
implemented?
Mr. Pistole. I think, as you know, Madam, had been
reviewing that. Obviously, we started Known Crewmember with the
pilots. We are working through the issues with the flight
attendants. There are a number of other aspects to that. But
yes, I commit to doing that.
Ms. Jackson Lee. As you well know, we have had a number of
cabin security issues. I have asked the Chairman for a cabin
security hearing. I look forward to working with him to
securing that hearing.
One incident in particular that obviously was unique, but
involved an airline pilot in the mix. There were fortunately,
among the other families, women. There were some ex-NYPD
officers. But the restraints broke. They were so aged that they
broke. My question to you is, in the substantial cut that we
face in the appropriations bill dealing with FAMs, how would
this substantial reduction in FAM stress the mission for in-
cabin security?
Mr. Pistole. Well, obviously, reduction in FAM coverage is
a potential. I say ``potential,'' because we don't know; but a
potential reduction in aviation security.
Ms. Jackson Lee. So $50 million that is now reduced out of
FAM's budget, how would that impact----
Mr. Pistole. That reduces aviation security.
Ms. Jackson Lee. So what are you doing to assist with
airlines? Obviously, you know, because TSA is the first line,
about their in-cabin security, i.e., equipment, et cetera?
Mr. Pistole. Sure. So of course, over the years we provided
training obviously for pilots, the flight attendants, and the
entire flight crew. Then the airlines have their--they have
taken that in terms of additional training. They actually
provide the restraints that you talk about. So we do not
regulate the exact type of restraints that they would require
to have on-board. But it is up to them to actually----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me, as my time is ending, make sure
that they are doing it. My last point just to make, you are
looking at how you deal with the elderly and children. Is that
not right? I think that is crucial that you deal with that
issue.
Mr. Pistole. Right. Absolutely; we have instituted new
policies for children 12 and under last fall. We have
instituted new policies for 75 and older last month; and so all
those individuals would go through an extradited physical
screening, less-intrusive screening, because they are in a
lower-risk category.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me thank the Chairman for--I hope to
return.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you. Chairman recognizes Mr. Turner of
New York for any questions he may have.
Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good to see you again, Mr. Pistole. How are you? Some time
ago we talked about training and behavioral analysis. How do
you select these people? A good deal of judgment and tact is
required, and an overriding common sense, which we all know is
not that common.
Are any of the collective-bargaining provisions impeding
how these people are selected?
Mr. Pistole. Thank you, Congressman. So let me answer the
last question first. No, there has been nothing impeding that
from a collective-bargaining perspective. We go through a
selection process. Obviously, we look for volunteers of those
who have the aptitude.
Then we do a screening process of them to assess whether
they would be a good candidate, based on some of those criteria
you mentioned, including common sense, and the ability just to
engage with somebody in conversation. We then put them through
a training.
For those that we have at Boston and Detroit who are
engaged in what we call the ``Assessor Program,'' they then go
through an additional training regimen, which is designed to be
the most comprehensive that we have within TSA and the
department, to say what are their abilities to discern what a
person's intent is by, again, just a brief conversation.
It may be as much as not what the actual answer, but how
that person--their body language, their eye contact, some of
those things that are known in law enforcement, of course, in
terms of just being able to engage somebody so all those things
are factors that we look at as we try to assess who our best
people are to be those behavior detection and those assessor
officers.
Mr. Turner. How long does it take to, in your judgment, to
train one of these people?
Mr. Pistole. Well, so the assessors, which are--if you want
to call them a super, you know, behavior detection officer in
Boston and Detroit have been through not only--they are all
behavior detection officers to start with--I believe everyone
is.
Then, they go through a 40-hour training course which is
tested, graded, and most people make it through, some do not if
you don't pass, if you will.
This is based on some world-wide best practices, without
identifying specific countries, but world-wide best practices
on what is the best way to engage a passenger in a verbal and
a, you know, a non-hands-on approach.
So they go through this 40-hour training and, then, they
have on-the-job training to assess, okay, you made it through
the training all right, but are you actually doing this as we
would like in real life? So we have it in the two airports now,
in terms of the Assessor Program. We have not expanded that yet
because of one the questions is: What is our return on
investment? So we put people in this position, what type of
detection are we getting and what is that return on investment?
Mr. Turner. To date, have we found the speeds to process up
of screening and moving that line along?
Mr. Pistole. It does not speed the process, but we have
been able to make some modifications. For example, is it the
document checker, who first checks the travel documents and the
passport, can that person do some of this or does it need to be
a separate officer? So we have been able to make some
refinements based on that.
It takes, typically, from 20 to 30 seconds for this
conversation to take place so it doesn't expedite the process,
but it is another layer of security that helps us.
And is particularly noteworthy in light of the intelligence
from last year where terrorists were talking about surgically-
implanted devices so where they are talking about not just
underwear bombs, as we have seen, but actually taking
explosives and having the suicide bomber agree to have that
device surgically implanted.
A behavior detection officer and assessor may be the best
layer of security we have to engage that person and see whether
there may be something about that person before they ever make
it on a plane. So those are some of the options we look at.
Mr. Turner. All right. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. I thank the gentleman.
The Chairman now recognizes the Ranking Member of the full
committee, Mr. Thompson, for any questions he may have.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I would like unanimous consent to enter into the record an
exchange of letters between Mr. Pistole and myself.
Mr. Rogers. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
Letter From Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson and Hon. Nita M. Lowey
May 31, 2012.
The Honorable John S. Pistole,
Administrator, Transportation Security Administration, 601 S. 12th
Street, Arlington, VA 20528.
Dear Administratoe Pistole: As you know, Transportation Security
Officers (TSOs), the men and women on the front lines of our Nation's
aviation security efforts, fought for nearly 10 years to secure
collective bargaining rights. As the main Members of Congress who
advocated for collective bargaining rights for TSOs, we heralded your
February 2011 decision to confer TSOs those critical workplace rights.
That decision cleared the way for an election that resulted in the
American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) being named the
exclusive representative for TSOs nearly 1 year ago.
For the past 3 months, the Transportation Security Administration
has been engaged in negotiations with AFGE over a contract. This
process is at a critical juncture. Unless you resolve outstanding
issues and reach agreement on a final contract within the next 30 days
of face-to-face negotiations, outstanding issues will be put before a
unitary dispute resolution system that would further delay
implementation of critical workplace rights for TSOs. Now is the time
for you to show leadership and personally commit yourself to securing a
timely and fair agreement and implementing a third-party grievance
review process for TSOs. By doing so, you will deliver on the
expectations of the hard-working and committed men and women who put
their trust in you when they participated in the elections nearly a
year ago.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Should you want
to discuss this matter with us or have any further questions on this
matter, please contact me or Mr. I. Lanier Avant, Staff Director,
Committee on Homeland Security, or Dana Miller, Legislative Assistant
and Counsel for Congresswoman Lowey.
Sincerely,
Bennie G. Thompson,
Ranking Member, Committee on Homeland Security.
Nita M. Lowey,
Member, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, Committee on
Appropriations.
______
Letter From John S. Pistole
June 6, 2012.
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson,
Ranking Member, Committee on Homeland Security, U.S. House of
Representatives, Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Congressman Thompson: Thank you for your letter of May 31,
2012, co-signed by Congresswoman Lowey. I appreciate your continuing
interest in the status of collective bargaining negotiations with the
American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), and your support as
we move forward with this effort.
On June 1, 2012, TSA and AFGE received a decision from the Panel of
Neutrals regarding whether the contract ratification and referendum
process should be included in collective bargaining negotiation ground
rules. AFGE initiated this proceeding, arguing that negotiated ground
rules should include this referendum process. The ruling held that,
because my Determination of February 4, 2011, did not expressly exclude
the contract ratification and referendum process from negotiation
ground rules, it was appropriate to include that item as part of the
ground rules. In their argument before the Panel, AFGE asserted that
ground rules include any collective bargaining process from beginning
to end, and are not restricted to just the period of negotiation over
contract provisions. This traditional view expands the ground rules
beyond what I had envisioned when issuing the Determination, and the
ruling has broader impact beyond negotiations on the 11 specific topics
subject to collective bargaining.
The Panel remanded the ratification and referendum proposal back to
the two parties for negotiation and inclusion in ground rules. As a
result of the Panel's decision, we are working to complete the ground
rules negotiations consistent with the Panel's ruling. We are
simultaneously negotiating on the actual contract provisions.
Discussions with AFGE National leadership continue on other topics
outside the scope of the Determination, including a third-party review
process for certain matters.
In previous conversations, I've shared with you my belief that the
long-term effectiveness of our counterterrorism and security
responsibilities is inextricably linked to a motivated and engaged
front-line workforce. I remain steadfast in my opinion that a union,
operating within the framework of my Determination, can play a
constructive role to heighten the level of employee engagement and
improve mission performance. My aim remains to conclude an agreement
with AFGE as soon as practical that represents the collective interests
of our dedicated and hard-working TSO workforce.
I look forward to your continued interest and support of TSA and
the changes we are making to become a high-performing counterterrorism
organization. An identical response has been sent to the co-signee of
your letter, Congresswoman Lowey. If you require any additional
information on this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me
directly or Ms. Sarah Dietch, Assistant Administrator for Legislative
Affairs[.]
Sincerely yours,
John S. Pistole,
Administrator.
Mr. Thompson. As well as unanimous consent to enter into
the record the arbitration results relative to negotiations
between TSA and AFGE.
Mr. Rogers. Without objection, so ordered.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The document has been retained in committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Thompson. Relative to that collective bargaining effort
and the fact TSOs have selected a bargaining representative.
Mr. Pistole, can you provide the subcommittee your
assurance that TSA will negotiate with AFGE in accordance with
the determination and that you are committed to reaching a
resolution on a contract through the regular negotiating
process?
Mr. Pistole. Absolutely, Congressman Thompson. I am
personally and we have committed to that and we are working
diligently to reach that agreement.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you. Taking off from Mr. Turner's
comments about behavior detection officers, you know, GAO
looked at that spot program and we spend about a billion
dollars of taxpayer's money putting this program together.
If we look at who we have detained, have you made an
assessment of whether or not the original intent of the program
is being met by the people we are detaining?
Mr. Pistole. Yes, the short answer is yes, it adds value as
another layer of security at U.S. airports. The question is,
again, that return on investment. Is it something that we
should expand beyond--for example, the assessor program, beyond
the two airports we are in as the most robust layer of security
and I am still assessing the information from there?
So we have identified a number of people who exhibited
behavior anomalies, if you will, suspicious behavior things and
they have been people who, for example, had false documents on
them, were illegal aliens, perhaps had outstanding criminal
warrants for them.
So we have identified people and law enforcement has been
able to step in and arrest, detain those people. One of the
questions we get, well we haven't identified any terrorists,
and I think that is because of the deterrent nature of the U.S.
Aviation Security system, the protocols we have in place.
Every threat we have seen since 9/11, to aviation, has been
from overseas whether it is Richard Reed, the shoe-bomber,
whether it is a liquids plot in 2006 from London, whether it is
the----
Mr. Thompson. So your testimony is that the billion-dollar
investment, even though we have not caught a terrorist, we have
caught people with visa overstays or what have you is worth the
investment?
Mr. Pistole. I believe it is, yes.
Mr. Thompson. Was that the intent of the program?
Mr. Pistole. The intent is to deter terrorists and if it
doesn't deter, then to catch them because we haven't had any
actual terrorist try to get on a flight here in the United
States, even though some people talk about well, what about
Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square bomber. He was a fleeing
felon, if you will, as opposed to a terrorist trying to do
something to the flight.
Mr. Thompson. I expect you to defend your program. Now, GAO
also has said, well, maybe we ought to have a fresh set of eyes
look at it. Have you thought about having a third-party entity
look at it as GAO suggested?
Mr. Pistole. Yes. I mean I think there is strong validation
world-wide from some of the premiere security services in the
world that do this type of work. But as to actually having any
outside entity come in to do an independent validation, I have
not taken that step, if that is what you are suggesting.
Mr. Thompson. GAO suggested it. Say, you know, in TSA's
mind, it is a successful program, but outside of TSA, you have
had no outside validation.
Mr. Pistole. Well, yes we have. I thought you meant a new
study. So we have, for example, the S&T, Science and
Technology, part of the department.
Mr. Thompson. No, no----
Mr. Pistole. You mean outside the department?
Mr. Thompson. Outside the department.
Mr. Pistole. Yes, we have not paid for an independent
third-party review to come in and assess the program.
Mr. Thompson. Last point is the TWIC card is a real issue.
We have about 2.1 million people in this country with a card,
over time will expire. Do you commit yourself to addressing
that expiration before those times come?
Mr. Pistole. Yes.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, gentlemen.
The Chairman recognizes Mr. Richmond for any questions he
may have.
Mr. Richmond. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to the Ranking
Member, I will go straight to Congressman Thompson's last
question because I think he was kind of rushed and wanted to
get the commitment.
I represent New Orleans, Louisiana and the Port of South,
Louisiana, Port of New Orleans, five or six major rail lines
and TWIC issue is very important for us.
When you look at the loss of time of people going to renew
the card and having to go twice and I think the major issue is
the need for renewal and the need to go twice in order to get
the card.
Is there a plan in place to address both of those issues,
especially since we don't have the readers?
Mr. Pistole. Yes, Congressman, thank you. In recognizing
the importance, especially to your district, yes, there has
been a lot of very good work done.
We are very near to announcing what that plan which
addresses those issues in a way that still provides adequate
security in force to have validated cards, but also addresses
issue that you have raised in a way that balances the
individual needs with the security needs.
Mr. Richmond. Getting back to, I guess, the subject of this
committee and I agree with the Ranking Member of the
subcommittee that I think the title is unfair to you.
In your experience and any data surveys that you have seen,
is your approval rating or customer satisfaction reputation
that much different from any normal police department, meter
maid, or anyone else who has to enforce laws that are
uncomfortable or inconvenient?
Mr. Pistole. Well, I think, in large part, we are defined
by anecdotes. So of the 1.7, 1.8 million who travel every day,
I am not aware of a complaint yesterday or perhaps the day
before so think it is just part of the sheer numbers that we
deal with.
With over 630 million people in a year, we are not going to
have 100 percent customer satisfaction where every single
person believes they received the best possible security
screening. So I think that is just a factor of the numbers.
That being said, it is our goal to provide most effective
security in the most professional way to make sure everybody
gets safely from point A to point B, but it is done in a way
that it recognizes the privacy and civil liberties of every
traveling person.
It is something that, by definition, our job can be
confrontational and so people may not agree with that. What we
are working on, the training programs, the technology
improvements to try to become less invasive and yet more
thorough; all these things are designed with that outcome.
Not that it is a popularity contest, obviously, but it is
something that we want to make sure we can assure the traveling
public and, obviously, committees of oversight to say, yes, we
are providing the most effective security in the most efficient
way.
It doesn't happen overnight, change doesn't happen
overnight, but we have instituted changes that I believe are
addressing the committee's concerns and the traveling public's
concerns in a way that affects the vast, vast majority, again,
recognizing that there will be individuals who are not fully
satisfied.
Mr. Richmond. Then as you move to being smarter--and one of
my concerns and I probably different from many of the Members
on the committee, but as you reduce the level of screening for
seniors and infants, do you worry about creating an opportunity
for them to be used as mules and voluntarily or involuntarily
and is that a concern?
Mr. Pistole. That is a concern, Congressman. We have seen
incidents around the world where people have been used
unwittingly, as you said, particularly, well several incidents
where that has happened so we have to be mindful of that and
that is why when we describe TSA as being one of the multiple
layers of security for the U.S. Government, the key enabled for
all of this is intelligence on the front end.
So this most recent plot involving the underwear device
part two, that intelligence crew I talked about, the Yemen
cargo plot that was disrupted, that was all based on
intelligence. So it is not like we are operating in a vacuum
over here. So if somebody is going to use a child or an elderly
person, we are working in close concert with the rest of the
U.S. intelligence and law enforcement communities to make sure
that we have information about that.
We will always keep random and unpredictable screening as
part of it and everybody is still going through some physical
screening, it is just a question of: Can we do it more smartly?
Mr. Richmond. Very quickly, I only have about 20 seconds
left.
Customer satisfaction, do you have any idea where you are
in terms of your approval rating or customer-satisfaction
rating?
Mr. Pistole. Well, well again so----
Mr. Richmond. If you have a number, it would be great.
Mr. Pistole. So I know in terms of the calls to our TSA
contact center, let us say a half million, 525,000 calls thus
far this year--over half of those are just for information; 7
percent of the calls that we receive at this contact center are
complaints. So most are just asking for information about
screening protocols and things like that, 7 percent are
complaints. I think last year, it was 6 or it was 6 percent
now, 7 percent last year I have had to give to give the exact
data.
Mr. Richmond. My time is up but I would say it is far
better than the 13 percent approval rating for Congress.
Mr. Pistole. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Rogers. I wouldn't bet on it.
One of the things you could do, I mean he asked a very
legitimate question. I think it would be good for y'all to do--
there are all kinds of survey companies that will do surveys
for you on customer satisfaction. I think it would be good for
y'all to hire one to go out and ask the traveling public what
they think of TSA, what they would suggest.
But I want to go back to what I am suggesting and that is
y'all get leaner.
You said that you thought 30 to 40 percent reduction in
personnel was too much. What is a good number? Keep it in mind,
you don't need 46,000, nobody in this room believes that with a
straight face that you have got the right number of people.
What is the size that you can cut? Is it 25 percent?
Mr. Pistole. The challenge is to say what type of security
is the American people--what are they expecting? So----
Mr. Rogers. No, I am asking you, you have been in the job 2
years and you are a very smart competent fellow, I know that
and I hand it to you.
You have had 2 years to run the department. if you could
pick the work force, what is the number you could get by with?
If it is not 46,000, is it 35,000 workers if they were
professionally trained?
Mr. Pistole. So the current construct in order to be the
most efficient agency possible, which most people don't think
about some of the details, 14,000 of our officers are part-
time. So just as there is a morning rush hour on the highways
and the streets, there is a morning rush hour at most airports
anyway.
So as opposed to having full-time people there all day, we
have part-time people who come in for 4 hours in the morning,
some workers split shifts, 4 hours in the afternoon----
Mr. Rogers. Isn't that 14,000 in part-time workers over the
46,000 full-time?
Mr. Pistole. The requirement is that those who are hired
with the cap is 46,000, so the FTE, when we get into the
details, it is still below that.
That is one way we have tried to deal with that cap is to
say, Congress has not approved full-time funding for all these
people so we have full-time and then we have all these part-
time people and part of the challenge is how do you train and
retain a professional workforce? So the attrition rate that I
mentioned, the 7.2 percent--is it higher for the part-time
people because they are looking for other opportunities? So
that is part of the challenge.
So if you are telling me you would fund us at ``X'' amount,
the appropriations would give us ``X'' amount, then I would
have to look at, so do I cut back the part-time, which would be
less efficient because then we need full-time people who are
not busy during the----
Mr. Rogers. I want you to put out those people that are
standing around not doing anything at the airport screening
checkpoints.
Mr. Pistole. So just on that comment, sir--some of our
airports don't have break rooms where people who are close by
the checkpoint and so they may have to simply go to a, you
know, a coffee shop or something on their break because they
may have to walk 10 to 15 minutes to get to a break room. Well,
if they have a 20 break, it is difficult to do----
Mr. Rogers. I am not talking about folks on their break,
Mr. Pistole. You know I am in airports all the time and I
actually am one of the people in Congress who understand the
TSA and I know who is working----
Mr. Pistole. No you don't.
Mr. Rogers [continuing]. And who is not. You and I both
know, you can go to any major airport and you see a lot more
people than necessary at these checkpoints.
So I am going to get back to my question.
Mr. Pistole. Yes.
Mr. Rogers. If it is not 25 percent, is it 20 percent that
you could reduce the workforce?
Mr. Pistole. Sir, I am not prepared to say a percentage
that I am willing to reduce because I believe the personnel we
have currently, again, using that part-time construct are
necessary to provide the security the American people expect
today.
Mr. Rogers. Well, it is not hurting your confidence level.
You and I both know, everybody in this room knows, you can get
by with less folks. I tell you with the budget problems we are
having around here, you know your number is not going to be
getting bigger. So if you are going to find money for the
technologies that you are looking at right now, you are going
to have to find it somewhere.
If you want to find the money to train these people to make
them more professional, you are going to have to look for some
place in your hide to come up with the money and I think you
are going to have to look at right-sizing the department to get
it down and then using that money to make them more
professional.
You talked a few minutes ago about the professionalism
necessary for this job, do you feel like that the 46,000
screeners are exhibiting the professionalism or the degree of
professionalism that you expect?
Mr. Pistole. Most do, but there are some clearly who don't.
So if they violate our policies or procedures or if their off-
duty conduct is such that they do not uphold those expectations
then we take appropriate action.
Mr. Rogers. I know that you started and I applaud you for
starting a uniform training system so every screener will
hopefully one day go through the exact same screening so there
is more uniformity across airports.
My question is: At the rate that you are putting through
that training program now, how many years will it take for the
entire workforce to go through it?
Mr. Pistole. Well right now, we don't have appropriated
funds to do that and so we are taking it out of hide because it
is a priority. So it is a long-term construct----
Mr. Rogers. By long-term, do you mean 1 year?
Mr. Pistole. Oh no, multiple years, out years we are
talking about.
Mr. Rogers. Decades?
Mr. Pistole. Not decades but multiple years.
Mr. Rogers. Okay. Tell me more about that attrition rate?
Mr. Pistole. Seven-point-one or 7.2 in fiscal year 2011
and----
Mr. Rogers. Well, let me ask you this. I looked at what
happened in Ft. Meyers, you know, y'all had a little problem
out there, what does it take to get fired at TSA? Apparently a
lot more than these folks, they only let four of them go and
the other 35 or so were given suspension for not doing their
job.
Mr. Pistole. Well, obviously, the facts of each individual,
we want to make sure that we investigate properly. We afford
appropriate due process. If there is immediate issue with
security then we suspend them right away so they are not on the
job affecting security.
These individuals that were found to be most egregious, we
have proposed for dismissal, the other 37, we have proposed for
suspensions based on their activity and their culpability,
including the Federal security director, his deputy, and then
the manager who had the oversight. So it was a situation of did
they know or should have known----
Mr. Rogers. Yes.
Mr. Pistole [continuing]. What was going on?
Mr. Rogers. Well I appreciate it. My time has expired.
The Chairman recognizes the Ranking Member of the full
committee, Mr. Thompson, for any more questions he may have.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much.
Mr. Pistole, one of the issues that some of us have tried
to move with this committee is respect to new technology. The
culture of a lot of organizations is to only deal with certain
vendors because they had the capacity to deliver.
But one of the things that a lot of members are exposed to
is new detection technology. But we always hear that the
barrier between developing the technology and what is required
to get TSA's nod is so difficult to overcome.
What can you say to this committee that will allow new
technologies a faster way of becoming vetted?
Mr. Pistole. Yes, thank you Ranking Member.
On Monday of this week, I met with a group of industry
personnel, CEOs, COOs from a number of companies including some
small business, minority-owned businesses. One of the thing I
told them is we are always looking for innovation. So the
spiral development is good but we are also looking for
breakthrough technology which may come from anybody. So the
big-ticket items, if you will, I would agree, it is difficult
for the small-business owner--the several-person organization
to try to, for example, to develop a $100,000 piece of
equipment just on the R&D and everything.
So what we do is try to--looking for opportunities--and I
think if you look across the department and even across the
Government, we have one of the best records, even though it is
challenging, with small-business owners, minority owners to
engage them in ways that may be outside the normal protocols.
So if there is anything specific, I will be glad to follow
up with----
Mr. Thompson. Well----
Mr. Pistole [continuing]. It off-line and----
Mr. Thompson [continuing]. You know, you know, I have got
about 4 minutes, I would just like to, as a follow-up to this
meeting, engage you with some of the people that have contacted
the committee about their difficulty and I would like for you
to listen to them because what you say to us and what they say
to us also, is not the same thing.
Mr. Pistole. Be glad to do that, sir.
Obviously, we are always looking for innovation. If we went
through the number of unsolicited proposals some of them----
Mr. Thompson. Well the reason I say that is, some of the
companies have capacity. Some of the companies have even been
able to deploy their technology overseas to airports that we
have relationships with but they can't get that technology
through TSA's vetting.
If there is a disconnect, I want you to help us identify it
and, you know, these are American companies, American jobs that
we could do.
Apart from that I have one other issue I want to--the
reorganization. We have been hearing about it for a little
while now. Can you provide us with a preliminary report on the
efficiencies you expect to gain from this reorganization?
We have been exposed to reorganizations in the past, but we
have not been able to determine efficiencies. What we have been
able--just to be honest with you--is you move people around,
you get some people promoted, some people moved down. What is
your purpose in the reorganization?
Mr. Pistole. The bottom line is to come up with the most
efficient way of providing the security service that we
provide. So, to that end last year I caused an efficiency
review to be taken, particularly for the headquarters
components. There is information out there, some reported by
other committees, that there are 4,000 people at TSA
headquarters.
We have 2,500, approximately, people at our headquarters.
Now, we have other components that do National functions and
vetting, for example, Annapolis Junction, our operation center
out by Dulles Airport. So they may be counting those numbers--
but anyway, the members at headquarters, what this review was
to look at--the layers of review, for example, on documents,
policy issues. So we have eliminated a number of positions at
headquarters to become more efficient, leaner, smarter--to the
Chairman's point.
I would have to get back with you in terms of the exact
numbers and those issues, but to say it is a number of
positions that have been eliminated to reduce layers of
bureaucracy and to become a smarter, leaner organization.
Mr. Thompson. But can you provide us with an interim report
on where you are with that?
Mr. Pistole. Yes.
Mr. Thompson. And what savings are projected----
Mr. Pistole. Yes.
Mr. Thompson [continuing]. In that respect?
Mr. Pistole. Be glad to do that.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. I thank the gentleman.
The Chairman recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr.
Turner, for any additional questions he may have.
Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I travel a good deal. I am in an airport about 12 times a
month, I guess. I observe the lines. I think how fast we get in
and out of there has a great deal to do with your image and
customer satisfaction, and even how much air travel. I know
people who prefer to drive now to the Carolinas rather than to
endure what they have to do at an airport.
Just one of the things that I have noticed is the belts-on
or belts-off policy. Sometimes males are required to take their
belts off. It slows things down. Other times they don't. I
don't know if there is a uniform policy or just to keep
everyone off guard. But that is a slowing process.
Sometimes there is enough people there to help move the
trays in high-peak times. I see inspectors who were looking at
the electronic monitors were on-the-job training. Very often
they stopped at every other bag and have to call for
assistance.
I would think that these would be better suited for low-
traffic periods. I don't see a process to--when things are
getting out of hand there are a thousand people standing on the
line for blocks, a way to quickly alleviate that?
Mr. Pistole. Thank you, Congressman.
That is one of the challenges that we have, and part of the
reason--to the Chairman's question about the staffing--if we
reduce the staffing by ``X'' percent that would likely have an
impact on those wait times. Unless there is such an efficiency
because of things--is it the same level of security? That is
the bottom line.
So what I would like to do is provide the committee with
some of the metrics we use on assessing those very things. We
actually look at this issue, assess, and look for ways to
improve that in terms of the staffing model for each airport
based on the checkpoint configuration, how long the wait times
are.
I get a report that shows wait times around the country,
all 450 airports. Obviously it is the CAT X's that we most
focus on--the largest airports--to say when there is a longer
wait time than what we believe is appropriate.
I spoke yesterday with the CEO. We had five airline CEOs in
yesterday for an update in classified intelligence briefing. I
spoke with two of them about issues; one in particular at a
major airport, where their customers are experiencing longer
wait times than they are used to. So, he wanted to know how we
can work on that together in terms of their additional
staffing, our additional staffing, to alleviate that issue.
So it is something we are very focused on. You raise some
good points about the belts-on, belts-off. There is some random
and predictable--usually the idea and the whole idea behind the
Trusted Traveler PreCheck Program is let us leave the shoes on,
leave the belts on, leave the light jacket on to expedite those
that we have done more prescreening of.
So that is the whole construct, the whole idea behind the
PreCheck program. As we get more and more people into that it
will address those issues. It will help alleviate the wait
times at the regular checkpoints, because we can streamline
those others.
So again, it doesn't happen overnight, to the Chairman's
point. I wish I could say yes, it is all going to be done
tomorrow. But we are moving very deliberately and as fast as we
can while maintaining the best possible security to achieve
those goals that you outline.
Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Pistole.
Mr. Rogers. I thank the gentleman.
The Chairman recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr.
Richmond, for any additional questions he may have.
Mr. Richmond. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will try to pick up a little bit where Mr. Turner left
off. That is, besides for PreCheck, which has expedited
significantly for people who have signed up, and people who
travel all the time, but what should we expect or look for, for
the regular traveler who has not signed up? I thought that
shoes on would be something that would have been achieved by
now.
What can we look for in the near future for the general
traveling public to help them expedite them through the
process?
Mr. Pistole. Thank you, Congressman.
We are working both internally and we have received some
proposals from the private sector on that very question, how do
we expand that known population using commonly available data
that, if again, if people are willing to share that, how can a
private company take that data, assimilate, assess it based on
our criteria of risk, and then provide that information to us
outside of the elite frequent fliers or even global entry
program?
So we had a meeting on that yesterday. I think there is
some very good opportunities. Again, and it is not an overnight
fix, but I think it will give us the opportunity to greatly
expand the base now, as well as, for example, the members of
the military that I mentioned, as we expand beyond Reagan
Airport, in Seattle, where they are now, as more and more
people in the intelligence community come on.
So again, the whole idea is to build that known population
as broadly as, and as quickly as we can, while maintaining the
best possible security. So for the everyday common traveler, or
the everyday traveler, somebody from New Orleans, Baton Rouge,
says, ``Okay, I travel a couple times a year.'' They could sign
up for global entry, which would give them that expedited
access at the 15 airports, now 35 by the end of the year.
But we are exploring ways that through a private-public
partnership we could do that. So we don't actually get the
data. I don't want people's personal identifiable information.
But if a private company does that in partnership with the
individuals, and then they can provide that information to us,
then we can make a risk-based judgment based on the pre-screen
so we can expedite them at the checkpoint.
Mr. Richmond. To the Chairman's point, and I think he is
far more aggressive than I am, but I would indicate support
that I do think that any entity can run a little leaner and
smarter to reduce costs. At some point you get to the point
where you can't do more with less. I don't think we are at that
point with TSA. So to the extent that we can operate leaner,
more efficiently, I think that should be the goal.
My question to you would be is there anything that you have
that we can help you with to make it easier for you to operate
more efficiently or leaner?
Mr. Pistole. Well, I appreciate that, Congressman. I think
simply the public recognition, and as Members of the committee
do, that the broader we can expand this known population, the
more quickly we can do that, the more efficiently we can
operate.
So getting to the Chairman's questions, as we expand that
population I do see some savings in the future. I just don't
know what those are, and so the support of the committee is
critically important in terms of moving forward with the whole
risk-based security initiative.
Mr. Richmond. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. I thank the gentleman.
The Chairman now recognizes my friend and colleague from
Illinois, Mr. Walsh, for any questions he may have.
Mr. Walsh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Pistole. I apologize for being tardy.
Let me start out with a broad general question. If TSA does
suffer from sort of a bad public relations reputation these
days, and much of that is endemic to what they do, if you were
to be critical though, what constructive criticism would you
lay at the feet of TSA itself, and/or the folks that work with
TSA in contributing to that poor public perception?
Mr. Pistole. Yes, we talked a little bit about that. I
think it is the anecdotes that drive a lot of that negative
impression, and rightfully so. So is we have treated somebody
unprofessionally, then shame on us, because we have not done
the job that we are expected to do.
So that is clearly on us, and that is why we are doing all
this new training, re-training, professionalizing of the
workforce, those things that will enable us to move to the next
level.
So I think the criticism is accurate. I think it is, again,
driven by anecdotes, so we don't hear from the 99.9 percent of
people traveling every day who had a positive experience, or at
least a neutral experience, which is the vast majority. So we
do hear these other ones, you know, that--and just one example.
So a few weeks ago or last month there was some issue about
Secretary Kissinger, you know, received a negative screening
experience. Well he hadn't complained about it but it was some
person who saw him and reported it. Well, so he put out a press
release saying, ``Look, the men and women of TSA were very
professional. I go through this because of my health condition
and they treated me with respect and courtesy.'' He sent me a
personal letter with that same information.
So it was picked and criticized--I think it is just the
environment that we are in.
Mr. Walsh. Do you measure that all? Measure----
Mr. Pistole. So we measure complaints. So as mentioned a
little while ago, thus far this year out of the--I think it is
525,000 calls through our call center--and that is not
dispositive of every complaint. Some people are so frustrated
they don't want to call, they don't know who to call. Sometimes
we get complaints from some of the privatized airports like San
Francisco, they will call us to complain about what the company
that does privatized air, so we have to refer them to them.
So out of those half million, it is either 6 percent or 7
percent of those who are actual complaints, advice, asking for
information or clarification of things. Then last year, fiscal
year 2011, was again the three-quarter million calls and it was
either 6 or 7 percent. I am just not sure which number was
which.
Mr. Walsh. A couple of specifics, does TSA have any plans
to allow passengers in the future to carry things to protect
themselves like pocketknives or anything of such?
Mr. Pistole. To the Chairman's point earlier, we have
looked at the prohibited item list and I think there are some
opportunities for us--there is strong concern from some that if
we allow knives on airports or airplanes for example, that--we
know how the box cutters were used on 9/11 to, you know, to
kill flight attendants and perhaps a passenger as a way of
intimidating people to get into the cockpit.
So there is some strong views on both sides. But yes, we
have looked at that. We have made some minor modifications
along the way. I don't know what all has been announced but
there have been some minor modifications.
What we are looking for is to have our folks focus on what
can cause catastrophic failure to the aircraft and that is--the
greatest threat now is the nonmetallic improvised explosive
device. So that is what I want our folks focusing on. The fact
that they find all these other things, okay, that is good but
that is not going to bring down an aircraft, so that is where
we are evolving to.
In the future here, we will have some updates in that
regard.
Mr. Walsh. Great, thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. Rogers. I thank you.
You know, following up on that, you are right. We need to
be focused on the real risk threat which is explosives and not
on a pair of scissors, grooming scissors or fingernail clippers
and stuff. So I do hope that you will visit that with a broad
perspective.
I want to go back to one of the other questions that was
asked about Henry Kissinger.
You know, he is one of the most recognized people on the
planet. Donald Rumsfeld, we had an issue a couple of years ago
where he was going through and was patted down.
I think the thing that aggravates the public about that is,
if we are truly moving to a threat- or risk-based perspective
of how we do this job, why are we patting down Donald Rumsfeld?
I mean a supervisor ought to at least have the discretion to
say, I don't think we have got to worry about him.
So, do you see my point? I think that is why it winds up on
TV because it is just an illustration that there is not the
degree of professionalism that we want. You know, I am
concerned about the fact that apparently supervisors don't have
more discretion.
I would like to see the department get much more aggressive
about finding the money out of hide, my preference is by
downsizing, to put more supervisors through uniform training so
they have got a lot more professionalism and more discretion
frankly.
Mr. Pistole. Yes, thank you Chairman.
I agree completely with you on that. We need to empower our
front-line people, particularly supervisors, and that is why we
started with our first classes at the Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center for supervisors knowing that they are critical
to drive the change that--that we are trying to make at TSA to
empower them.
Currently the Federal security directors do have that
discretion, but they are obviously not at each checkpoint 24
hours a day. So what we are trying to do is push that
discretion down with the right people to make sure that there
is good judgment, there is good common sense being used in
those situations.
So I agree with you on that.
Mr. Rogers. Tell me what kind of time line you see being
realistic.
Mr. Pistole. For the?
Mr. Rogers. Training of the supervisors.
Mr. Pistole. Well, again, we are doing this all out of
hide, so I would have to say I can't do anything or I can't do
this, so I am going to do that. So right now, we have trained
50 supervisors and we have classes, I think we have eight or
nine more classes scheduled for the rest of this year, so that
would cover several hundred more----
Mr. Rogers. Out of how many?
Mr. Pistole. I want to say 3,000-some. I don't know the
exact number. So again, without specific funding--so talking
about funding----
Mr. Rogers. Right.
Mr. Pistole [continuing]. If there was funding for this and
Congress and the American people said we need to train TSA
supervisors and others more, then I obviously, I could expedite
it very quickly.
Mr. Rogers. Right.
I do want to go back to the issue a little while ago about
termination. Sheila Jackson Lee, in her opening statement,
talked about the fact when we do run across people that aren't
doing their job, we need to run them off. I completely agree
with her on that not just because it gets bad apples out of the
system who need to find something else to do, but it sends a
message to the other workers that we take this stuff serious
and we expect them to do their jobs or go somewhere else to go
to work.
So I do hope that y'all will be more aggressive in that
area. I know when the GAO reports where we found they audited
the screening system and they found failures. More often than
not, the failures were attributed to human error; some because
they weren't trained well enough, some just because they were
sorry.
Those folks need to be fired, because very seldom have I
found any instance where when they had that failure, they were
fired. Instead they were removed from that position and then
given more training and then sent back. You just need to fire
some of those folks and it would get everybody else's attention
I think.
Mr. Pistole. I agree with you, Mr. Chairman, in terms of
the accountability. I think if you look at what we have done,
particularly in the last year since we stood up the Office of
Professional Responsibility with security officers, for example
in Honolulu or in Charlotte or most recently in Ft. Myers that
when we find people not doing the job, we will give them due
process but we will hold them accountable and we will fire them
and that is----
Mr. Rogers. Well I hope so because the American public, you
know, is paying for that and they are standing in the lines and
they are seeing this and I really think it would help that
image problem----
Mr. Pistole. I agree.
Mr. Rogers [continuing]. That the department has got.
Mr. Pistole. I agree.
Mr. Rogers. If you put a bump in their step.
Were you going to ask something? I thought you asked for my
attention.
Mr. Richmond. No.
Mr. Rogers. Oh, I am sorry, I am sorry.
The, Mr. Thompson talked to you a few minutes ago about
this access to you by business leaders. You know, one of the
concerns I have had is procurement problems in the department
and not just in your department, the entire Department of DHS.
Tell me, why was the business roundtable used to decide who
got to come and talk to you?
Mr. Pistole. The----
Mr. Rogers. This was at the recent TSA Systems Integration
Facility.
Mr. Pistole. Oh yes, the meeting on Monday.
So the----
Mr. Rogers. Yes, Mr. Thompson was talking about it----
Mr. Pistole. Right, right, right.
Mr. Rogers [continuing]. A little while ago.
Mr. Pistole. So there were members of this roundtable who
were organized because they have either existing contracts or
they are looking for what the way forward is. But it wasn't
limited to that, it was also open to I believe it was 25 or 50,
I don't recall, other businesses who were allowed to
participate so they didn't have to be--you didn't have to be a
member of the roundtable to participate in that, if that is
your question.
Mr. Rogers. Yes, well I think what was frustrating to me
about it was it was open only to a limited universe. You know,
one of the things that we have been trying to urge the
department to do is broaden the number of private-sector people
you bring in for dialogue so they have a better feel for what
your challenges are maybe then some ideas about how to meet
those----
Mr. Pistole. Right.
Mr. Rogers [continuing]. Challenges.
As I have talked with your personnel who deal with
procurement, they have indicated they are going to try to
broaden that net and this was just inconsistent with that and I
didn't know if you were aware of----
Mr. Pistole. Well, yes. So to that point, again, there were
the core group but it was not limited to that group. Again, I
have to get the numbers but I think there another 50 percent of
that group that it was open to anybody who wished to come with
space limitation. So I think they had to indicate an interest
and then I don't know if everybody who was interested in
coming, whether there were space limitations.
But it was a full house and I spoke to the group and I took
questions from anybody who had a question. So if there was a
small business or there was somebody who wants to do business,
it was completely open to anybody who wanted to ask a question.
Mr. Rogers. Great.
Mr. Richmond, do you have any more questions?
Mr. Richmond. I was just going to join you in the question
about the bad actors and inefficient people, incompetent people
that they need to fire them which is the same message and the
same thing we talked about when we found the private security
company in Detroit who had the agent who found the bag outside
and brought it into lost and found and our question at the same
time was, No. 1: Why do we still have that private contractor?;
and No. 2, the private contractor still has the employee.
I think one thing that helps is when people know that you
won't tolerate incompetence, laziness, or whatever the matter.
It improves your image. But more importantly, it makes our
citizens safer which is the goal. So I would join in that and
even being in support of TSA and traveling a lot--and, you
know, even as someone who probably wouldn't fit the mold of
getting the light security check, I am neither young nor older
and, you know, so I don't have a problem with TSA.
I think that there is some areas you can improve. I don't
think you need to be the greeter at Wal-Mart. But at the same
time, I don't think you need to be the overbearing security
guard who does not use common sense in how they deal with
people.
Mr. Chairman, I would just suggest that, you know, as
distinguished and notable as Donald Rumsfeld and Henry
Kissinger are, I would still bet that the odds of Brittany
Spears are more easily recognized than them, so----
Mr. Rogers. Let us hope so.
Mr. Richmond. But, so we just have to make sure that common
sense does play into the decision making.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. That is exactly my point; there are certain
people that are just so well-known that you have got to use
your common sense because if you start patting them down,
people are going to say, they are patting down Beyonce. She is
not going to blow the plane up.
Say what?
Mr. Richmond. [Off mike.]
Mr. Rogers. Oh, off the record, yes, yes, I know where you
are going.
I want to offer a couple more examples of where I think you
can get money out of hide.
Now we had a hearing in here a couple of weeks ago on--the
ground security--surface inspectors, just over 400 of them--and
we had five different industry folks in here who were saying we
have no idea what they are all doing. You know? There used to
be 80-something of them and they all felt like they could still
get by with that 80, we don't know why there is 400. That is an
area I think that I would like to see you visit. That has been
a very rapid ramp-up of personnel.
Another is in the airports where we do have private
contractors, we are very heavy on TSA personnel supervising
those private contractors.
For example, in San Francisco, we have 88 Federal employees
under the FSD supervising the contractor there but they only
have 44 managers that they are supervising. It is pretty hard
to understand why you have got to have two people supervising
one person.
So I mean those are things that I think are just examples
of how there is some potential to go in there and do some
thinning which would help pay for this professional training
that you and I both agree.
I do hope that you will take from this hearing the
overriding theme that I have had and that is I want to see
y'all get leaner and smarter on a much more rapid pace.
Mr. Pistole. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
If I may just comment on the San Francisco example, so
that, I think 88 number--that I believe is less than 20 who are
actually overseeing the private company. So that 88, if that is
the right number, is actually the entire office that deals with
all other issues not just--for example, to have forward-
deployed counsel from the Office of General Counsel, has a
surface inspectors--things that are not related to that airport
security.
So that----
Mr. Rogers. That makes sense. Even if it is 20----
Mr. Pistole. Yes.
Mr. Rogers [continuing]. For 40 people, I mean they
literally could get by with two or three people who are
supervising those 40 managers.
Mr. Pistole. Well, I don't agree with that. I mean
obviously if it has got to be a different contractor, we would
just turn them loose and say, ``Okay. You have free reign.''
But yeah, there is a medium in there. I agree and I agree we
can be more efficient.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Davis, do you have any questions?
Mr. Davis. No I don't.
Mr. Rogers. All right, well welcome.
Thank you again, Mr. Pistole for being here.
This hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:27 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
