[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
FEDERAL AIR MARSHAL SERVICE: OVERSIGHT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 17, 2015
__________
Serial No. 114-61
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
http://www.house.gov/reform
___________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
99-658 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
________________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah, Chairman
JOHN L. MICA, Florida ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland,
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio Ranking Minority Member
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
JIM JORDAN, Ohio ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
TIM WALBERG, Michigan Columbia
JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee JIM COOPER, Tennessee
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania
CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
RON DeSANTIS, Florida TED LIEU, California
MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey
KEN BUCK, Colorado STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands
MARK WALKER, North Carolina MARK DeSAULNIER, California
ROD BLUM, Iowa BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania
JODY B. HICE, Georgia PETER WELCH, Vermont
STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin
WILL HURD, Texas
GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
Sean McLaughlin, Staff Director
David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director
James Robertson, Transportation and Public Assets Subcommittee Staff
Director
Michael Kiko, Professional Staff Member
Sharon Casey, Deputy Chief Clerk
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on September 17, 2015............................... 1
WITNESSES
Mr. Roderick Allison, Director, Office of Law Enforcement/Federal
Air Marshal Service, Transportation Security Administration,
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Oral Statement............................................... 5
Written Statement............................................ 8
Ms. Heather Book, Assistant Administrator, Office of Professional
Responsibility, Transportation Security Administration, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security
Oral Statement............................................... 11
FEDERAL AIR MARSHAL SERVICE: OVERSIGHT
----------
Thursday, September 17, 2015
House of Representatives,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in Room
2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jason Chaffetz
[chairman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Chaffetz, Mica, Duncan, Walberg,
Walker, Blum, Hice, Russell, Carter, Grothman, Palmer,
Cummings, Maloney, Duckworth, Kelly, Lawrence, Watson Coleman,
DeSaulnier, and Welch.
Chairman Chaffetz. The Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform will come to order.
Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a
recess at any time.
This morning, we had been conducting a joint hearing with
the Natural Resources Committee, but, in consultation with the
ranking member, Mr. Cummings, and working with the Democrats,
we are going to go ahead and start this hearing at this time.
Today, we are here to talk about the Federal Air Marshals--
a very difficult job, very needed in this country,
unfortunately.
The Federal Air Marshal Service, often referred to as FAMS,
is comprised of thousands of men and women who have taken an
oath to prevent and disrupt acts of terrorism on our Nation's
airplanes. Many of these men and women operate at 30,000 feet
in the air and act as the last line of defense against
potential terror attacks.
These air marshals operate in anonymity and mostly under
their own supervision, and most of them do a good and decent
job, serving a patriotic service and doing so with great
integrity. But when any member of this highly trained workforce
veers away from the core mission, they put the Nation's air
security at risk.
So why are we here today? Unfortunately, there have been
some very high-profile scandals. Former FAMS Director, Federal
Air Marshal Service Director Robert Bray retired in 2014 after
being investigated for his entanglement in an alleged operation
to acquire guns for officials' personal use. In 2012, Federal
Air Marshals assigned to protect commercial flights across the
United States were pulled from their assigned flights so they
could meet on sexual rendezvous.
Most recently, there is an allegation of air marshals
disguising themselves as pornography producers, hiring
prostitutes and using their government-issued phones and other
assets to film sexual encounters. Unfortunately, these people,
based in Chicago, have been evidently engaged in these
activities.
These are all ongoing investigations. There is also
reportedly major alcohol abuse within the Federal Air Marshal
Service.
But this story, this hearing is really not only intended to
address those problems, but it has at least been our purview in
the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, at least on our
side of the aisle, that Director Allison, who is here today,
and Ms. Book have taken some pretty strong and decisive action.
Now, through the course of the first 8 months that I have
been chairman of this committee, we have heard a series of
different agencies that have come before us and complained that
they couldn't take decisive action. Think of the DEA, the
Secret Service, the EPA. We have had some very, very salacious
misconduct from some of their employees, and yet they weren't
fired, they weren't put on administrative leave, they didn't
get their security clearances revoked. We had a situation, like
I said, with the Secret Service, within the same department and
agency, Homeland Security. Why weren't those people's security
clearances revoked?
But what I have found in the interactions, with great
concern, hearing about how maybe flight schedules had been
manipulated and sexual misconduct going on and inappropriate
behavior--really thought that what we were going to find is yet
another agency that wasn't dealing with that in an appropriate
way.
Now, there is more to learn; we are not giving them a free
pass. I am not saying it is the absolute model for where we
should be going, but I have been very impressed in the openness
and transparency within the Federal Air Marshal system, their
interaction with our committee, and what they did in a very
decisive and swift manner.
So, every hearing we do, we are not calling for the
resignation of everybody--a lot of them, but, in some cases, we
find something that is actually working well. Because there are
misdeeds going on, there are things that are going awry, and we
want to learn what they are doing in order to rectify that.
So I have the deepest respect for the loyal men and women
who work under Director Allison's leadership. They bear a
tremendous responsibility.
There are some things in this hearing that I am sure
members of the public and members of this committee would be
interested in hearing. Some of that is classified. I will
interrupt and I will not tolerate anybody who is trying to get
specific details about the number of air marshals, which
flights are they on, which flights are they not on, and how
they make such selections. That would be reserved for a
classified setting, not appropriate in an open hearing. We do
not need to tell the terrorists who they are, what they are
doing, how they do it.
Suffice it to say, I have reviewed some materials that
would lead me to believe, A, this service is needed. There is a
threat, and it gives me comfort to know that they are on top of
it.
Now, I worry about they don't know and who might be on an
airplane or getting through security, and there are a host of
other things that we should--and Mr. Mica has done great work
on this, the security badges and getting through and what the
whole TSA is doing and not doing. A totally different subject.
But let's talk about the good, the bad, and the ugly of
what is happening here with the Federal Air Marshals. And let's
also give some credit where credit is due when we do rout out
something that is wrong and deal with that in a swift manner.
So, with that, I will yield my time and now recognize the
ranking member, the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Cummings, for
his opening statement.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I do
thank you for holding this hearing on allegations of misconduct
by employees of the Federal Air Marshal Service.
And let me say this from the outset, Mr. Chairman. I agree
with you with regard to Administrator Allison. It is so often
that people in his position seem to skirt around matters when
there is wrongdoing in their department. But, as you have said
to me both privately and now publicly, he has taken on his
responsibilities very diligently and carefully and has done
everything in his power to address the issues at hand. And we
do appreciate that.
Our committee has been looking into two separate cases. In
February, press reports allege that a TSA employee used her
position to gain access to personnel files and flight schedules
to identify air marshals she wanted to date. According to these
press reports, flight schedules were changed to facilitate,
``sexual trysts.'' On March 2, Chairman Chaffetz and I, along
with Representatives Mica, Duckworth, DeSantis, and Lynch,
wrote to Secretary Johnson at the Department of Homeland
Security with regard to this incident.
A second incident was reported publicly just yesterday.
According to an article by the Associated Press, ``Two Federal
Air Marshals have been suspended amidallegations they hired
prostitutes overseas and recorded a sexual encounter with a
government-issued device.'' Obviously, if these allegations are
accurate, they are completely inappropriate for anyone, let
alone air marshals charged with securing our skies. These
employees must be held accountable, and I know they will be.
From our perspective here in Congress, we want to ensure
the integrity of the ongoing investigations and disciplinary
actions in these cases, so we cannot discuss some of this
information publicly. The last thing we want to do is
compromise these ongoing investigations.
Director Allison, we understand that you and Ms. Book may
not be able to testify about certain details of these cases at
today's hearing. We fully understand that. And, as the chairman
said, I know that he will diligently guard against questions
that might go into those issues.
Despite these limitations, however, I want to thank you
very much for the detailed briefing you gave to me and to the
chairman last night about these incidents. Based on the limited
information the committee has obtained to date, it appears that
managers at your agency have been acting appropriately, using
existing legal authorities to investigate and take action on
these cases.
The chairman has also made clear that he acknowledges the
positive steps you have taken to date. And I applaud you for
what you said to us just yesterday--that is, that you want to
be proactive, that you want to create an atmosphere where these
things don't happen so you don't have to come behind and clean
up a mess. Those aren't your words; those are my words.
Our broad interest is in ensuring that employees who are
alleged to have engaged in misconduct are investigated promptly
and fairly. We want bad employees to be routed out as quickly
as possible because they give a bad name to the vast majority
of Federal workers who devote their entire careers and lives to
this Nation.
And one of the other things that you told us is that you
want to make sure that your agency has the very best and lives
up to the highest of standards. And we appreciate that.
We also want to protect the rights of employees accused of
misconduct to ensure that they have due process to defend
themselves against accusations that are false. Director Allison
has already taken several steps to improve this process, and I
believe the Oversight Committee can also help.
For example, my staff members have been working very
closely behind the scenes to help the Environmental Protection
Agency and its inspector general develop new protocols to share
information about employee misconduct matters. As a result of
this work, both the EPA and IG have now advised the committee
that they have implemented new processes to take more timely
and fair disciplinary actions. They have begun holding biweekly
meetings to share information about investigations, they are
now communicating more frequently about administrative actions,
and they are now sharing with agency managers reports of
investigation in specific cases.
And so, Mr. Chairman, as I close, I have here a joint
letter that was sent to the committee from both the EPA and the
IG's office detailing some of these improvements, and I ask
unanimous consent that it be entered into the record.
Chairman Chaffetz. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Cummings. I believe this letter shows what we can do if
we work hard with the agencies and the investigators to improve
their procedures. This type of work does not always get the big
headlines, but it makes a real difference. I look forward to
hearing from Director Allison and Ms. Book about whether this
procedure or something similar would help TSA, as well.
And, with that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you, and I yield
back.
Chairman Chaffetz. I thank the gentleman.
I will hold the record open for 5 legislative days for any
members who would like to submit a written statement.
Chairman Chaffetz. I will now recognize the first and only
panel today.
We are pleased to welcome Mr. Roderick Allison. He is the
Director of Law Enforcement for the Federal Air Marshal Service
at the Transportation Security Administration at the Department
of Homeland Security.
We also want to thank Mr. Allison for his 13 years of
service in the United States Army, his work in the Seventh
Special Forces Group at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, among one
of the highlights.
We thank you, sir, for your service to our country and
appreciate you being here with us today.
We also have Ms. Heather Book, Assistant Administrator of
the Office of Professional Responsibility at the Transportation
Security Administration at the Department of Homeland Security.
We welcome you both.
Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses are to be sworn
before they testify, so if you will please rise and raise your
right hands.
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are
about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth?
Thank you. You may be seated.
And let the record reflect that the witnesses both answered
in the affirmative.
We will give you great latitude on the time of your opening
statement. And it would be remiss if your opening statement did
not include, although maybe impromptu, some details of the two
incidents, in particular, the individuals out of Chicago as
well as the other incident where evidently schedules were
manipulated and whatnot. We are inevitably going to ask about
those, but we would appreciate it if you would proactively take
some additional time and address those as well.
With that, Director Allison, you are now recognized.
WITNESS STATEMENTS
STATEMENT OF RODERICK ALLISON
Mr. Allison. Good afternoon, Chairman Chaffetz, Ranking
Member Cummings, and members of the committee. I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you today to testify about the
Federal Air Marshal Service.
Our mission at FAMS is to detect, deter, and defeat
criminal or terrorist activities against our transportation
systems. We perform our core mission by deploying Federal Air
Marshals on United States-flagged aircraft throughout the
world, 365 days a year, utilizing a concept of operations that
aligns with TSA's risk-based security strategy.
Federal Air Marshals are law enforcement officers who
receive specialized training to prepare them for the challenges
associated with a very difficult working environment. Our
officers operate at 30,000 feet, in restricted space, and have
no backup to call upon.
The Service is unique in its ability to remain flexible and
to rapidly deploy hundreds of law enforcement officers in
response to specific evolving threats within the transportation
domain around the world.
I can assure you that the vast majority of Federal Air
Marshals are quiet counterterrorism professionals working
diligently every day on thousands of flights a year to protect
the traveling public and ensure our transportation systems are
safe.
There have been recent media reports on this conduct by
FAMS. I can assure you that Administrator Neffenger finds
misconduct at any level completely unacceptable. I
wholeheartedly share his philosophy and have made it crystal-
clear to every employee: There is no tolerance for misconduct.
All personnel are very well aware of our high standards and
expectations of professionalism. And, as Federal law
enforcement professionals, they are held to a higher standard,
both on duty and off duty. I share the committee's expectation
that we, as government employees, must demonstrate the highest
level of integrity and conform to a rigorous code of conduct.
As you know, I cannot comment on pending investigations.
However, I can tell you that all allegations of misconduct are
immediately referred to TSA's Office of Inspection or the DHS
Office of Inspector General for a thorough, impartial, and
independent investigation.
The results of these investigations are reported to TSA's
Office of Professional Responsibility. Investigative findings
that are substantiated by these independent investigations may
result in severe consequences, up to and including removal from
Federal service. And please note that the discipline decisions
are independently administered, as well, by Assistant
Administrator Heather Book's staff at the Office of
Professional Responsibility, who is here today.
Since becoming the FAMS Director in June of 2014, I have
made strong value-based leadership, workforce engagement,
enhancing communication, and promoting the highest level of
professionalism and integrity in the Air Marshal Service my top
priorities. Over the past 16 months, I have personally visited
all 22 Federal Air Marshal field offices, and, together with
the Deputy Director, we have held 50 townhall meetings
throughout the FAMS organization.
I also use multiple means of communication to ensure open
dialogue access at all levels of the workforce. I encourage the
use of the Director's email box, personally engage with both
the Federal Air Marshal Advisory Council and the Supervisory
Air Marshal Advisory Council. I utilize an ombudsman and
aggressively communicate the availability of support and
assistance programs that are available to all employees.
Since the vast majority of our employees are dedicated
professionals who conduct themselves in an exemplary manner
each and every day, I have initiated a number of programs to
recognize, award, and thank them. This outreach has provided me
the opportunity to highlight and express my appreciation for
the outstanding work that is being accomplished by so many.
During initial training, all Federal Air Marshals are
provided multiple courses regarding integrity, accountability,
and professionalism. We have expanded our in-service training
to a variety of topics, including resiliency, critical incident
response, and, most recently, completed mandatory alcohol
awareness training.
All TSA employees are subject to recurrent annual vetting
and on an annual basis certify that they understand and will
abide by TSA's employee responsibilities and code of conduct.
Additionally, FAMS are subject to security clearance
determinations and appointments to national security critical
sensitive positions following strict adherence to the federally
established adjudication guidelines.
Nonetheless, these proactive efforts won't prevent all
misconduct. There are a handful of employees who may betray the
trust bestowed upon them. In these cases, both headquarters and
field leaders must and will act appropriately, quickly, and
decisively.
During my visits, I have stressed to supervisors their
responsibility to lead. They are expected to mentor
subordinates and to manage minor issues at the local level. I
have empowered them to lead by example and to foster a law
enforcement environment that promotes integrity and
accountability. I believe a strong leadership reduces the
likelihood of misconduct and performance issues.
We continue to provide our workforce with the resources and
specialized support required to carry out the mission. As such,
FAMS maintains a number of medical programs, to include a
comprehensive annual physical, health and fitness program, and
employee assistance resources. The FAMS medical section is
staffed with a physician and other full-time medical
professionals who are available to FAMS personnel at any time.
FAMS recognizes the value of these programs, as our mission
is demanding both physically and mentally. We will continue to
make these and other employee assistance programs available to
our personnel.
The Federal Air Marshal Service is a strong
counterterrorism element in the security TSA provides to the
traveling public. We take our mission seriously, and our
workforce is dedicated to preventing and disrupting both
criminal and terrorist acts aboard aircraft within the
transportation domain.
Our workforce is comprised of exceptional men and women who
execute a difficult mission. I am deeply honored to lead this
team of counterterrorism professionals, and our Nation should
be proud of the work they do each and every day to support the
goal of securing our transportation systems.
I appreciate this committee's interest in our mission as we
execute our sworn duties, which are vital to the security of
the traveling public. Thank you for the opportunity to appear
before you today, and I look forward to answering your
questions.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Allison follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Chaffetz. Ms. Book, you are now recognized.
STATEMENT OF HEATHER BOOK
Ms. Book. Thank you.
Good afternoon, Chairman Chaffetz, Ranking Member Cummings,
and distinguished members of the committee. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify today.
Our highest priority at TSA is accomplishing the important
mission to protect the Nation's transportation systems and to
ensure freedom of movement for legitimate travel and commerce.
Our new Administrator, Mr. Peter Neffenger, has committed to
ensuring that we continue to pursue our vision of an effective,
high-performing counterterrorism organization. We are a
security organization, and every member of our team must be
focused on this core mission.
Most importantly, our new Administrator has committed to
leading with values that define our agency--integrity,
innovation, and team spirit--and he has asked each of our
employees to do so, as well.
Every day, TSA's 57,000 employees serve to ensure the
security of our Nation's transportation networks, interacting
with the traveling public millions of times each day. We screen
passengers and baggage at nearly 450 airports across the United
States. We deploy Federal Air Marshals on U.S. Aircraft
worldwide to ensure the safe conduct of flights on high-risk
routes and to cover special mission needs. We vet 14 million
passenger reservations and 13 million transportation workers
against the terrorist watchlist every week.
The totality of our efforts facilitate safe, secure air
travel for 1.8 million people per day. In doing so, the vast,
overwhelming majority of our workforce serves with honor and
integrity.
Our success depends upon the dedication and professionalism
of our workforce. Public service is a public trust, demanding
adherence to the highest ethical and personal standards of
conduct. Because TSA employees interact directly with the
public and hold sensitive security positions, their conduct is
held to the strictest standards. When a TSA employee fails to
live up to those standards, he or she violates that trust and
undermines the honorable work that others do keeping the
traveling public safe.
For all these reasons, we have no tolerance for misconduct
or criminal activity in the workplace. When allegations or
incidents of misconduct arise, they are investigated by the DHS
Office of Inspector General or by TSA's Office of Inspection,
an independent office that reports directly to the TSA
Administrator and Deputy Administrator.
Office of Inspection reviews allegations and reports them
to DHS Office of Inspector General. When OIG elects not to
handle the case, Office of Inspection conducts the
investigation.
The Office of Inspection also conducts independent
oversight inspections of operational programs, procedures, and
policies. These inspections assess compliance and afford
employees an opportunity to discuss allegations of misconduct
in a confidential setting.
To promote consistency, timeliness, and accountability in
the disciplinary process, TSA created the Office of
Professional Responsibility, or OPR, the office that I lead.
OPR adjudicates all allegations of misconduct involving senior-
level employees and law enforcement personnel, including the
Federal Air Marshals. OPR officials also review all reports of
investigation from the OIG regardless of the pay grade or
seniority of the employee.
OPR has promoted greater transparency and consistency in
the entire TSA disciplinary system by creating a table of
offenses and penalties. The table provides ranges of penalties
for each type of offense and guides the decisions of officials
both at OPR and in the field.
The Office of Professional Responsibility has a trained
staff dedicated to adjudicating disciplinary matters involving
senior-level employees and law enforcement personnel, including
the Federal Air Marshals.
OPR affords employees due process and holds them
accountable to TSA's high standard of conduct. Having a
dedicated staff of adjudicators who serve as independent
proposing and deciding officials has reduced the time between
the issuance of the resolution proposal notice and the decision
letter.
Through use of the dedicated staff and the table of
offenses and penalties, OPR has taken strong actions and has
maintained a consistent approach to accountability.
OPR has partnered with the Office of Law Enforcement/
Federal Air Marshal Service to educate the workforce in the
field regarding disciplinary process and the table of offenses
and penalties. The goal of our joint outreach efforts is to
motivate positive behavior and to deter or prevent misconduct
by providing notice of the possible penalty and consequence.
Additionally, OPR has supported Director Allison's alcohol
awareness initiative by amending policy to require Federal Air
Marshals to abstain from consuming or being under the influence
of alcohol for a minimum of 10 hours before mission report
time. For the offense of driving a privately owned vehicle off
duty while intoxicated, the table of offenses and penalty
requires a 30-day suspension for law enforcement employees.
Because TSA, through my Office of Professional
Responsibility, has taken an aggressive approach in drafting
solid proposals and decision letters in disciplinary matters,
and through the support of the Office of Chief Council, OPR has
had strong cases in the event of litigation.
Ethics and integrity are at the core of who we are as a
counterterrorism agency. It is up to all of us to always show
the highest level of professionalism and perform our work with
honor and pride.
As we strive to continue strengthening transportation
security and improving the overall travel experience for all
Americans, we always bear in mind that the success of our
mission depends on the conduct of our people. The freedom to
travel is fundamental to our American way of life, and TSA is
fully committed to ensuring that the public can do so securely.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I
am pleased to address any questions that you may have.
Chairman Chaffetz. Thank you.
We will now recognize the gentleman from Florida, the
subcommittee chairman for transportation but also the former
chairman of the full Transportation Committee in the House of
Representatives, Mr. Mica, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this
important hearing reviewing some of the performance of the
Federal Air Marshal Service.
Unfortunately, the FAMS, Federal Air Marshal Service, has
had a recent history of a whole host of misconduct on a whole
host of occasions. We have had the gun purchase scandal, the
air marshal scheduling scandal, and allegations of cronyism and
discrimination issues, air marshals dependent on drug and
alcohol.
And you were brought in, Mr. Director Allison, when? Last
year?
Mr. Allison. Yes, sir. June 2014.
Mr. Mica. --to kind of clean things up.
And I think the chairman has been pretty complimentary on
some of your efforts in trying to put some of that behind us,
institute some corrective measures, and also hold people
accountable. And part of this hearing was also to highlight
your successes.
Unfortunately, the allegations and the problems still
continue. As recently as, I am told, September 3, you informed
the committee of an ongoing investigation--this is a new one--
into solicitation of prostitutes. Is that correct?
Mr. Allison. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mica. And that is an ongoing investigation, correct?
Mr. Allison. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mica. In March, TSA began investigating a workers'
compensation fraud case in the Chicago FAMS office. Allegedly,
an air marshal claimed that he hurt his shoulder; however, I
guess there are some videos and some other evidence disputing
his claim.
So we have that case pending, too. Is that investigation
underway or continuing?
Mr. Allison. Yes, sir, that is an active investigation.
Mr. Mica. Well, when we set up all the security measures
after 9/11, we tried to have a layered system. We, first,
dramatically expanded the air marshals. There were only a
handful on the eve of 9/11, and we think that is an important
element in a layered system.
We have gone from 16,500 screeners to some 46,000 screeners
and almost 60,000 TSA employees. That is about right, isn't it,
Ms. Book?
Ms. Book. Yes.
Mr. Mica. Yeah. Back in 2007, we had 30,000 screeners. And
this was a leaked report; it was on CNN. And it said there is a
75-percent failure rate in the screeners' ability to detect
explosive devices and other devices that could do harm. Then,
most recently, we have had--I guess USA Today had a leaked
report about a 95-percent failure rate. These are anecdotal to
press reports.
Are you familiar, Mr. Allison and Ms. Book, with those
reports?
Mr. Allison. Yes, sir. We are all familiar with the
reports.
Mr. Mica. So we built a system, we have increased the
number of personnel from 16,000 to 30,000 for screeners, then
to 46,000 currently for screeners. It has gotten worse, rather
than better.
We have had a history of misconduct and problems with FAMS,
which is a backup. Fortunately, we have thousands of airline
pilots who have gone all the way to New Mexico, wherever they
are trained, to arm themselves and also protect us.
But the layered system that FAMS is so important to fill
part of that layer unfortunately still has some serious
problems. Is that correct, Mr. Allison?
Mr. Allison. I prefer to look at those as challenges and
opportunities, Mr. Congressman.
Mr. Mica. Well, it is not an opportunity when the reports
we get--now, it is nice that you come to us and tell us about
it, but it looks like we still have problems.
I haven't gotten into scheduling, and I would like you to
provide the committee with some information that could be part
of the record, either kept classified. I want to know about
overseas flights and how many of those are covered. I am told
you are not covering those overseas flights.
Almost every instance--Richard Reid, the liquid bombers,
the diaper bomber--all of these people trying to do us harm are
coming in or involve international flights, and you are not
properly scheduling folks.
So I think that should be reported back to the committee,
how many people you have on this and the problems that are not
being aired publicly about our most at-risk flights and then
our backup system with air marshals not operating the way it
should.
I yield back.
Chairman Chaffetz. I thank the gentleman.
Members are advised that we have three votes on the floor.
The voting has started. It is my intention to recognize Ms.
Watson Coleman of New Jersey for her 5 minutes. We will then go
into recess. After the votes, we will reconvene. That will be
no sooner than 3 p.m. And likely a little bit after that. So,
if members need to depart to get to the floor, I would advise
that they do so.
We will now recognize Ms. Watson Coleman of New Jersey for
5 minutes and then recess from there.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. But use your
influence with the majority so they don't close out the voting
before I get there. Thank you for holding this hearing.
Chairman Chaffetz. You are on your own. Good luck with that
one.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Well, Mr. Allison and Ms. Book, I want
to get to the issue of the day here, which has to do with these
allegations and what your agency does when these allegations
arise. So I would like to explore with you a little bit about
the authority that the agency has when there are allegations of
misconduct. Okay?
First of all, do these air marshals have to have security
clearances?
Mr. Allison. Yes, Ms. Congressman. These positions are
designated as national security critical sensitive positions,
which are subject to Top Secret clearances.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. So if there are allegations of a
serious breach of conduct, can the agency sort of suspend a
clearance on an individual?
Mr. Allison. Yes. Congresswoman, the adjudication
guidelines, of which you are referring, there are 13 criteria:
allegiance to the United States, foreign influence, foreign
preference, financial responsibility or irresponsibility,
criminality, and so forth. So when these allegations occur,
these are actually referred for investigation, first and
foremost. And as these investigations are ongoing, if these
investigators, who are very good, by the way--they actually
refer these to the Office of Security.
They can, in turn, take a look at that statement or
activity and decide if it hinges upon one of the 13 criteria
that I identified either on a continual basis or a one-time,
sort of, egregious incident. From that, they will make or could
make an unfavorable determination of whether that individual
will have his clearance suspended or even petitioned for a
revoke.
These are two-step processes. If it is a suspension, the
agency, the Federal Marshal Service, will move forward with an
indefinite suspension without pay up until the time that this
issue is revolved.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. I was going to ask you about that
issue, about without pay.
Let me understand this. So, at the point that the
allegation is made, what has to take place before a decision is
made, even before the investigation is thoroughly conducted, is
that the security clearance is suspended, that the individual
is not working in that capacity.
Does that happen before the investigation is completed, or
do you have to go through the investigation in order to do
that?
Mr. Allison. Congresswoman, it could happen before. It
depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case. Most of
the times, these are admissions. Sometimes--it won't be done
based just on an allegation; we need a little bit more than
that. But typically they are based upon admissions or a strong
set of facts and circumstances.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. So the allegations that are part of
this hearing and the reason for this hearing, do they represent
the kinds of allegations that would cause the agency to take
away the security clearance, put the individual's status in
suspension, and/or also stop the pay?
Mr. Allison. We found out about this in June, and by mid-
July these individuals were all suspended without pay.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Uh-huh.
So, in your experience and with your knowledge, do you
believe that you have all the authority that you need to deal
with these issues as they come to your attention? Or is there
something that is lacking that you need that would help you
facilitate the resolution of these issues dealing with these
infractions?
Mr. Allison. Congresswoman, I was asked that same question
by Ranking Member Cummings last night, and what I told him was,
if we are waiting on discipline to be the only measure by which
we can mold and shape a model workplace, our arms are going to
be tired from taking off all these people's heads.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Yeah.
Mr. Allison. So what I believe and the road that we have
embarked upon is bringing to bear all the resources that we
have within the organization--performance management, policy,
training, enforcement, discipline is one of them, the personnel
security aspect, and then good old-fashioned leadership.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Well, I have to tell you, I am very
expressed with your testimony about your being proactive about
your trying to create an environment of professionalism, how
you are both thinking as well as training as well as holding
accountable. So I thank you for answering the questions.
I thank you for my time, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Chaffetz. I thank the gentlewoman.
As I said previously, we are going to go into recess. We
appreciate your patience and understanding. The committee will
reconvene at the conclusion of those votes, but we will say no
sooner than 10 minutes after the top of the hour. We stand in
recess until then.
Chairman Chaffetz. The committee will come to order.
Appreciate your patience as we took a recess for the votes that
were on the floor, the swearing in of a new Member, the
gentleman from Illinois.
We now are pleased to recognize, as we continue with the
hearing, Mr. Duncan from Tennessee.
Mr. Duncan. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I don't have
any questions, but I do want to make a few statements for the
record.
And let me say first of all that I almost never disagree
with my chairman, and Ranking Member Cummings is one of the
members here that I respect the most, but I personally think
this Federal Air Marshal Service is probably the least or
certainly one of the least-needed organizations in our entire
Federal Government.
And this is no criticism of Director Allison. He has been
given a job, and it is his duty to do the best that he can.
And I may have been the first or one of the first to
question the need for this organization, but many people have
done that in the past few years. Gram Slattery wrote in the
Harvard Political Review, he said, ``A third and, for our
purposes, final example would of course be the Federal Air
Marshal Service--not the one of Hollywood's imagination, but
the real one, which has come to be a symbol of everything
that's wrong with the DHS: the agency in which 4,000 bored cops
fly around the country first-class, committing more crimes than
they stop, and waiting to be among the 0.1 percent of agents
making one of those rare, ephemeral $200 million arrests.''
And what he's referring to, there was a USA Today article a
few years ago that said that there were more air marshals being
arrested than arrests by air marshals. There were a few years
there where they averaged four arrests a year, and this is for
an agency that was getting over $800 million a year. And, in
fact, in the last 10 years, they've gotten almost $9 billion
total.
Then there was a book written by John Mueller, a professor
at Ohio State, along with Mark Stewart, an Australian
statistical engineer, who wrote a book called ``Overblown: How
Politicians and the Terrorism Industry Inflate National
Security Threats and Why We Believe Them.'' One of the key
findings of this book was that these two professors could not
find any internal discussions, public reports, government
personnel, or sources of any kind that could explain how the
DHS could justify the spending on the Federal Air Marshal
Service.
And they said, because the agency so totally fails a cost-
benefit analysis, when they wrote, they said, since the FAMS
costs $1.2 billion per year--which I guess that was how much it
was at the time they were writing--and its effectiveness is in
serious doubt, and they said, an alternate policy measure is to
double the budget of the FFDO program, the Federal Flight Deck
program, and also to increase the spending on the secondary
security barriers, the IPSBs.
Former Congressman Sonny Callahan I remember saying years
ago, he said, we did everything we really needed to do when we
secured the cockpit doors. And, of course, now we spend
billions on the TSA.
But these two professors recommended a 75-percent cut in
funding for the Federal Air Marshal Service because it was so
ineffective.
Then former Senator Tom Coburn wrote in his last report
that he made as a Senator, he said, ``It's unclear to what
extent the air marshal program is reducing risk to aviation
security, despite the more than $820 million annually that is
spent on the program.'' In addition, he wondered if other
enhanced security screening and safety precautions undertaken
by the TSA and the airlines themselves have made--he said
they've made the Air Marshal Service irrelevant.
It seems to me--of course, every Member of Congress flies
here usually about twice a week. And that is what these air
marshals do; they fly back and forth, back and forth, back and
forth. It has to be one of the softest, easiest jobs in the
Federal Government but, I think, one of the least necessary.
And so I just wanted to put those comments on record, Mr.
Chairman, because I think this money--there are so many better
things that this money could be and should be being spent on.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Chaffetz. I thank the gentleman.
We will now recognize the gentlewoman from Illinois, Ms.
Duckworth, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Duckworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Director Allison, I was troubled by your written testimony
because it did little to address ongoing investigations of
allegations of workers' comp fraud and sexual misconduct by the
air marshals. I think that this behavior undermines your
mission and the Americans that the agency serves.
I am especially disappointed that the scandal involves air
marshals from your Chicago office, which is, of course, near
one of the world's busiest airports, Chicago O'Hare. My
constituents expect and deserve to be served by a dedicated
corps of Federal Air Marshals who are 100-percent committed to
safeguarding flights in and out of Chicago.
And, as other members have rightly noted, these allegations
are highly disturbing because they involve Federal law
enforcement officers. And Congress entrusts these men and women
with a badge, a gun, a solemn oath to protect our constituents
from terrorist acts.
And if the allegations of this egregious behavior and
misconduct are proven true, I strongly believe that the three
Chicago air marshals must be held fully accountable. And I know
that you are well on your way to doing so, and one of which
have retired.
But my concerns extend beyond this particular incident. My
fundamental questions about the potential weaknesses is in how
the Air Marshal Service recruits, vets, and hires new
applicants into the job.
This scandal that was disclosed last night comes on the
heels of another alleged incident of gross misconduct involving
your employees earlier this year, and it is simply
unacceptable. And now that there are two incidents, I want to
make sure that, you know, these are highly unusual, isolated
incidents and not a weakness in the recruiting program.
However, this committee can't replace facts with hope. We
have an oversight responsibility to examine whether these
scandals are symptoms of a deeper, more comprehensive problem
that threatens to undermine the Service's effectiveness in
recruiting, evaluating, and hiring potential air marshals.
So, Director Allison, can you briefly describe how Federal
Air Marshal Service's recruiting, vetting, and hiring system
allowed individuals who are suspected of engaging in incredibly
inappropriate misconduct to become Federal Air Marshals in the
first place? And include in your answer details on the type of
after-action review your team conducted to make such a
determination.
Mr. Allison. Congresswoman, first of all, let me just state
my opinion about the activity that we're talking about here
today.
For law enforcement officers to engage in this conduct that
really contributes to the scourge of human trafficking is
reprehensible. These individuals are a disgrace to the
profession; they are a disgrace to our organization. I came
from a place in the military where you never embarrass yourself
or the organization. And this committee has my commitment that
I'm going to take a personal interest in making sure these
people are shown the door.
To your question about hiring, the vast majority of the air
marshals were hired in a standup right after 9/11. Since then,
we've had a couple of other hiring opportunities. I believe one
might have been in 2007 or 2008, and, subsequent, there was one
in 2011. That was the last time we've hired.
The good news is we're a learning organization. We've
gotten better, and our last hiring effort, we actually infused
much more scrutiny upon the folks.
So I'm not here to say that--I'm not blaming it on 9/11,
the standup. That was a challenging time for a lot of people.
But, as we move forward and if I get the opportunity to hire,
to your point, we're going to put polygraphs in place, which we
weren't doing before. They were all vetted and everybody had a
background check, but background checks are snapshots in time.
They don't predict future behavior.
So I don't know if I can say unequivocally we didn't do a
good job of hiring. I think we can do a better job of hiring,
to your point.
Ms. Duckworth. Will you be doing any type of a formal
analysis of the hiring process, perhaps conducting an
independent review within your organization or perhaps turning
to DHS and asking their IG office to do a review for you, so
that you get a truly independent look at it?
Mr. Allison. I'm certainly willing to ask the IG. But just
let me share with you, in the President's budget for this year,
we had made a request, but, in that process, we actually worked
internally with our Office of Human Capital, our Office of
Civil Rights and Liberties, we had a team of people looking at,
okay, if we get a chance to hire, what is this going to look
like, how are we going to manage this, and what's the best way
to move forward. Because we want quality applicants. I would
rather not have to deal with bad employees. So I share your
concern.
Ms. Duckworth. I am out of time. I yield back, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Chaffetz. Thank you.
I now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
I want to talk specifically about those that were based in
Chicago. This all started because what happened?
Mr. Allison. Well, Mr. Chairman, as I explained to you last
night, I cannot give any details on that investigation.
Chairman Chaffetz. So there was a suggestion that there was
some fraud involved in a disability claim, correct?
Mr. Allison. Mr.----
Chairman Chaffetz. Go ahead and leave your mic on, because
I am going to keep asking here.
Mr. Allison. There was an investigation, and in the
conducting of that investigation they found activity that led
to what we're here talking about today.
Chairman Chaffetz. And----
Mr. Allison. And which is still ongoing, by the way.
Chairman Chaffetz. What leads you to believe it is ongoing?
There was a disability fraud allegation. Is that going to be
prosecuted?
Mr. Allison. I do know that that was referred to the U.S.
Attorneys Office and----
Chairman Chaffetz. And what did they tell you?
Mr. Allison. They told me I should contact the U.S.
Attorneys Office.
Chairman Chaffetz. And did they tell you they are going to
prosecute it?
Mr. Allison. I did not--I did not get that, Mr. Chairman.
What I got was for details relating to----
Chairman Chaffetz. This is the concern, is that they are
actually not going to prosecute it.
What is the disposition of the other people?
Mr. Allison. Everybody involved in this----
Chairman Chaffetz. How many people?
Mr. Allison. Well, there were three.
Chairman Chaffetz. The other two people, what has happened
to the other two?
Mr. Allison. All of the individuals involved were put on
indefinite suspension without pay, and one individual has
resigned.
Chairman Chaffetz. When you put them on indefinite
suspension without pay, which I think is probably due course to
doing that, what was the time from when you heard about it to
when you actually were able to do that, put them on suspension?
Mr. Allison. We were notified sometime around the second or
third week of June, and by the middle of July, I believe, they
were on indefinite suspension.
Chairman Chaffetz. What was the highest rank of the person
implicated?
Mr. Allison. Most of our line employees are--we have a
different pay system, but equivalent to the GS system, more or
less--the 13 level. They weren't supervisors, to your----
Chairman Chaffetz. They were not supervisors.
Did any of these three individuals have misconduct in their
past record, or disciplinary action?
Mr. Allison. Mr. Chairman, I'm not aware--if it was, it was
minor.
Chairman Chaffetz. Do you think these individuals believe
their behavior is condoned? I am not asking if it was condoned
by you. I am asking if these individuals believed their
supervisors would look the other way. Did they believe their
supervisors engaged in similar type of behavior or that the
media wasn't involved and so, therefore, it wouldn't be an
issue?
Mr. Allison. I do not know, Mr. Chairman. But I can just
tell you that the majority of our people, when they hear about
these things, they're sickened. So, for them to, as you stated,
assume that it was okay, I think it's a case where they must've
thought it was okay and they must've felt they weren't going to
get caught.
Chairman Chaffetz. Were any of these--these were three men,
correct?
Mr. Allison. Yes, sir.
Chairman Chaffetz. Were they involved and engaged in sexual
misconduct with anybody that was underage?
Mr. Allison. I'm not aware of that, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Chaffetz. Were any of these women these men
engaged with in sexual misconduct, were any of them foreign
nationals?
Mr. Allison. I'm not aware of that, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Chaffetz. Has there been any contact made with the
intelligence community to determine if any of these contacts
resulted in a breach of security?
Mr. Allison. Well, one, I'm not sure there was anybody that
was a foreign individual, but--so, no, we haven't contacted the
intelligence----
Chairman Chaffetz. And this was not an isolated incident,
was it?
Mr. Allison. Meaning, sir?
Chairman Chaffetz. That it didn't just happen once.
Mr. Allison. I'm not aware of the frequency.
Chairman Chaffetz. But it was more than once.
Mr. Allison. I suspect you're right.
Chairman Chaffetz. We have talked about prevalence of
potential alcohol abuse in FAMS. How would you assess the
situation, and what specifically are you doing about it?
Mr. Allison. So, Mr. Chairman, the suggestion that there is
alcohol abuse, I'm not aware of that.
I will tell you that, my 23 months that I spent in the
Office of Inspection before I became the FAMS Director--and, by
the way, I had no idea I was coming to be a FAMS Director--it
didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Mr. Booze was
an enabling factor with a lot of off-duty misconduct--domestic
violence issues, DUIs.
So, upon taking the position, the first thing I did was
order the orchestration of an alcohol awareness program, which
was really founded on two individuals who poured their heart
and souls out on this video and talked about how alcohol ruined
their lives. They almost died. And so the point of that was to
say to the workforce, ``If you have a problem, come forth.
We're going to help you.''
So I'm on there talking about the mission, our reputation
as an organization. The Federal Air Marshals are talking about
what alcohol did to them, the fact that they're still
productive members of the organization. We have the medical
people talking about the assistance that's available to them.
And, also, the personnel security chief talks about what can
happen these things--if it's not managed appropriately.
So I ordered that to be completed. The product exceeded my
expectations, a tribute to my staff. Everybody in the
organization had received that training by May of this year.
Chairman Chaffetz. And as I yield back my time, I guess
this is one of the things that impresses me about you
specifically, about this organization, the management you
provided, is taking a proactive stance and taking proactive
measures to deal with something that was obviously an issue. It
is not simply unique to FAMS; it is an issue that a lot of law
enforcement deal with. And I think it was very appropriate that
you did that, and I appreciate you doing that.
My time has exceeded. I will yield back and now recognize
Mrs. Lawrence for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Lawrence. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Director Allison and Ms. Book, thank you for being here
today. I appreciate you being here.
The alleged misconduct of Federal Air Marshals that have
been reported in the media, if it is true, is outrageous and
unacceptable.
I understand that discussing specifics of these allegations
could jeopardize ongoing investigations, and we don't want that
to happen. But without going into specific investigations, we
do have an opportunity--and I really appreciate what I just
heard you say, Director Allison--we have the opportunity to
discuss positive policy changes that agencies can implement to
ensure that serious misconduct is dealt with quickly and
fairly.
So my question to you today, in addition to the EPA and
IG--the IG, they were able to identify employee misconduct
cases involving pornography for expedited processing. EPA
reports that this new procedure is already working. They have
taken prompt administrative action in two misconduct cases
since initiating ongoing communications with the Office of
Inspector General.
Director Allison, can you let me know, is there a similar
process for the Federal Air Marshal Service in which
investigators, management, and leadership communicate, with the
goal of streamlining--streamlining--the disciplinary process?
Mr. Allison. Sure, Congresswoman. So the good news is we've
been doing that probably for about 4 years.
And we're a little bit different--and I saw the memo that
was provided to me last night by the staff--we're a little bit
different organized than EPA. So we do have a DHS IG, but,
within TSA, we do have an Office of Inspection where there are
criminal investigators that do investigations.
And so, similarly to what you described is, when these
investigations are occurring, if the facts and circumstances
present themselves and gives us an opportunity to take an
administrative action, we will do that.
Now, all cases are different. You know, sometimes the U.S.
Attorneys Office is involved and you can't share the
information. But, to your point, we look for opportunities when
we can, where we can.
Mrs. Lawrence. Well, I want to thank you.
But I just want to say that the bad apples in any
organization tend to get all the media. We recognize that. But
we don't want to overlook the way that agencies are
streamlining their disciplinary processes without sacrificing
the due process rights of Federal employees.
I do want to say that your leadership, your responsibility
of stepping up and addressing this issue--and I understand
there are some things you can't speak on--but, being a Member
of Congress and expecting our Federal agencies to conduct
themselves at a level that would be respective of the
taxpayers' investment in their jobs and our expectations of
their performance, I expect leadership.
I appreciate the fact that you did meet with the chairman
and our ranking member. I appreciate that. And I will stay in
tune to what happens next.
Mr. Allison. Thank you, Congresswoman.
Mr. Cummings. Would the gentlelady yield? Thank you very
much.
Just one question. When you met with the chairman and yours
truly last night, I wanted, you know, the committee to have the
benefit of an answer to a question I asked you.
The chairman and I have concluded that the Secret Service
over the years had developed a certain culture. Some might call
it complacency; some, mediocrity. I do believe it has gotten
better, and a lot of it has gotten better because of the things
that we have done.
But I want you to talk about, do you believe that you have
a culture problem? Because if there is a culture problem, I
mean, you have to dig deep and really, kind of, almost
reconstruct sometimes. But do you see that, or do you just see
these as more like aberrations?
Mr. Allison. So, Mr. Ranking Member, what I see is, having
the benefit of been into every field office--now, granted,
there are some limitations, because if I go to an office today,
New York, for example, there may be 75 Federal Air Marshals; if
I stay the night, I'll see a different 75. So I can't get to
everybody. But my experience of going out to the field, talking
to the Federal Air Marshals, having candid conversations, I am
truly impressed by the men and women that work for us.
They believe in what they do. As we sit here today, we're a
week removed from the ceremonies that took place in the country
about 9/11. A lot of people remember 9/11 one day a year; we
remember it every day of the year. And the men and women really
value their responsibility in this organization.
But I have to candidly admit to you that we have some
people who just feel like the rules don't apply to them and
they don't have to abide by the rules. As I said jokingly last
night--and I said I wouldn't say this today, but I'm going to--
they don't wear T-shirts and they don't confess. You've got to
find them.
So if I tell people what the expectations are and they nod
their head, there's nothing else to talk about, right? It's
time to find another job. And most of the people in this
organization, they respect that. And they're looking for us, as
leaders, to do something about this. They don't like being
splashed all over the news every other month.
So do I think we have a culture problem? No. I just think
we have a handful of people who, again, just think no one's
looking and they can get away with this stuff.
I mean, you heard my remarks about, you know, soliciting
prostitutes, which, again, you know, contributes to the
scourge, as I said, of human trafficking. How can a law
enforcement who really cares about this mission, this
department, this organization, engage in that activity? It just
baffles the mind. So, you know, it's time for them to find
another job, and I'm going to help them do that.
Chairman Chaffetz. I thank the gentleman.
We will now recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Hice,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Hice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thanks to both our witnesses for your testimony here
today.
Ms. Book, I would like to draw some answers from you. Just
overall, what is the role of the Office of Professional
Responsibility?
Ms. Book. Thank you, sir.
So the Office of Professional Responsibility was created to
handle the law enforcement cases and senior leadership cases.
And so it's a centralized office that handles all the cases of
misconduct.
We don't do the investigations. We have a separate office
that handles the investigations, Office of Inspection. So they
conduct the investigations, compile a report of investigation,
and give it to our office.
Then my office has proposing and deciding officials that
will handle the adjudication of the misconduct.
Mr. Hice. Okay. At what point do you get involved with an
allegation?
Ms. Book. Well, we have monthly meetings, we have the
Office of Inspection, also OLE/FAMS, and my office, to know
that there are ongoing investigations. So I'm aware of the
investigation, but I'm not involved in the investigation. So
our office isn't involved until the report of investigation is
completed and delivered to our office.
Mr. Hice. So what kind of jurisdiction do you have? If not
investigations, what do you do?
Ms. Book. So we can take disciplinary action. We can
propose--we can do letters of reprimand, letters of counseling,
propose suspensions, implement the suspensions, removal
actions.
Mr. Hice. All right. So you have a certain degree of
latitude, then, so far as disciplinary action and that type of
thing.
Ms. Book. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hice. Is there a scale to determine what kind of
disciplinary action there is based on certain behavior?
Ms. Book. Yes. We developed a table of offenses and
penalties. And so the table has categories of offenses, and
then it has ranges of penalties that are used as a guide for
the proposing officials when drafting the proposed removal
document.
Mr. Hice. Okay. So if there is some disciplinary action or
corrective action that you take, does the employee have a right
to appeal?
Ms. Book. Yes, of course.
So when our proposing official completes the draft of the--
say it's a proposed removal, then the letter is delivered to
the employee with all the materials that are relied upon. Then
the employee has 7 days to respond and, during that time, can
request an extension if necessary to obtain counsel. And then
they make a reply to the deciding official, who is a different
individual, who hasn't seen the case until the same time that
the employee received it. And so they have an opportunity to
make a written reply and an oral reply.
Mr. Hice. Okay. So, by the time all the written and oral
replies, what kind of timeframe are we looking at for an appeal
process?
Ms. Book. It can depend. It depends on if extra time is
needed for the employee to coordinate with their attorney. We
want to give them that time if necessary. So it can depend.
It's a range.
Mr. Hice. It could take a lengthy time.
Ms. Book. It could, but typically it does not.
Mr. Hice. Okay. How long does it--on your side, how long
does it take to recommend disciplinary action?
Ms. Book. Well, once we receive the report of
investigation, our goal is to--and we've been meeting this
goal--is to issue the proposal or the letter of closure within
30 days, calendar days, from receipt of the investigation.
And then our deciding official also has a standard, too.
That target is to issue the decision letter within 21 days
following either the oral or the written reply, the last of
those two.
Mr. Hice. Okay.
Does your disciplinary action include removal of employees?
And if so, what is the cost? What's involved in removing
someone?
Ms. Book. We do have authority to remove the employee. And
I'm not understanding the question for the cost.
Mr. Hice. Yes, just the process, is that a big deal? Does
it cost the agency time and money on research, investigation?
Of course, you don't do all the investigation, but is it a big
deal to have someone removed?
Ms. Book. Yes, it takes a lot of work. Yes, it does. I have
a dedicated staff to do it, so that's why we're able to do it
more quickly. But--so I have a dedicated staff of 30 people.
Mr. Hice. Do you feel you have the sufficient tools needed
to proceed with adequate and sufficient disciplinary action
when needed?
Ms. Book. I do. Thank you.
Mr. Hice. Okay. So you would not think from our perspective
there is more that should be done; you have everything you need
to deal with the issues, like what we're talking about today.
Ms. Book. Yes. I can't think of anything else that we would
need.
Mr. Hice. Okay. All right. Thank you very much.
And, Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Chaffetz. Thank you.
We will now recognize Ms. Kelly for 5 minutes.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you both for being here.
I, too, want to express my concern regarding the
allegations reported by ABC, the channel I watch in Chicago,
the city that I represent.
But I also want to give you the opportunity, Director
Allison, to talk more about the positives. You shared with the
chairman about the program dealing with alcohol, but can you
talk more about the townhall meetings or the thank-you campaign
that you are doing? What are some of the good things?
Mr. Allison. Sure.
You know, I really get a lot of enjoyment out of the
townhall visits. You know, you walk in the room--and when I was
a soldier, it was a big deal when the general showed up. I
don't think I'm important, but everybody else seems to.
But it's imperative to have those conversations with our
workforce, to tell them, this is where we are, this is what
we're working on, am I looking at the right things, what say
you, and give them an opportunity to ask questions. They range
anywhere from, ``What's the future of the organization,'' to
``I heard about this change, I heard about that change.'' And
the longer it goes, inevitably it gets down to personal issues,
but that's what I'm there for.
So it's extremely invaluable, because out of that process
what we've learned or what I learned was, in our effort over
the years to really enforce policies and discipline, I think
we--it might sound counterintuitive to what we're talking about
today--probably went a little bit too far, to the point where
we had a culture of writing people up. And what I mean is, you
know, you don't want to have a place where your good people are
walking on eggshells. And that's kind of where we are.
So we just recently rolled that back. And working with
Heather and Office of Human Capital and our counsel office and
Office of Inspections, we're really delegating a lot of these
low-level, minor issues back to the management so they can
lead, like managers should be doing. And then Heather's shop
can focus on the more important issues and maybe help speed up
the timelines. So that's something that was pretty significant
that came out of the townhall meetings.
The thank-you campaign, I wish I could take credit for it,
but my staff did.
Our air marshals get involved in a lot of things. I
remember Congressman Walker from another hearing told me about
his wife being a trauma--trauma nurse?
Mr. Walker. Yes.
Mr. Allison. Our men and women are all over the place in a
lot of airports around the world and around this country. They
get involved in things. They help people in car accidents. You
know, so a whole host of things like that.
The staff combs through the daily reports that come in and
pick out issues, and they just send a thank-you letter. And
it's from me, and it's to say, we're aware of this incident,
you know, thank you. And I forgot the number of letters that
went out, but it's quite a few.
Ms. Kelly. And can you share just some of the medical and
psychological assistance programs that are available?
Mr. Allison. Yes, ma'am.
So we have to take yearly physicals, and so the medical
staff pretty much follows up on those issues that come from the
physicals.
But, also, what's really impressive about the medical staff
is there's 24/7 on-call medical support. So you can imagine, we
go to some pretty nasty countries. And anytime, day or night, a
Federal Air Marshal calls, there is a nurse that is available
to them to provide advice and counsel.
Just to give you one example, you may have heard of the
individual that was assaulted with the needle in Nigeria. Our
doctor was on the phone with him in Nigeria at 11 o'clock at
night, as I was in my PJs at my desk, walking through what
happened, trying to figure out what's the best way to manage
that incident.
So it's a fabulous resource. They do a tremendous job and
are certainly an enabling factor to our success.
Ms. Kelly. Well, I just want to thank you for your
leadership, and I am sure things will continue to get better
and better.
Mr. Allison. Thank you, Congresswoman.
Chairman Chaffetz. I thank the gentlewoman.
We will now recognize the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr.
Russell, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Russell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Director Allison, with regard to the particular
incident, I realize it is under investigation, but could you
speak to how it was initially discovered? Internally or
externally?
Mr. Allison. Our Office of Inspection was running the
initial investigation.
Mr. Russell. And with that in view, for either one of you
or both, how many of the most egregious incidents of misconduct
have not been discovered by internal audits, inspections, or
investigations?
Mr. Allison. I'm not sure I understand your question.
Mr. Russell. I guess I'm curious to know--you know, the
hallmark of a professional organization is that it discovers
its own warts and makes corrections. So how many of these most
egregious incidents that, you know, you come to testify on have
not been discovered by internal audits, investigations, or
inspections?
Ms. Book. Sir, I'll take that question.
I can't give you a specific number; I'm not in the Office
of Inspections. But the Office of Inspections does have a
hotline. It's a confidential number that can be called by the
employees, and they can report allegations of misconduct.
Mr. Russell. Would you characterize that the vast majority
have been discovered internally by your organizations and then
it becomes public, or vice versa?
Ms. Book. I couldn't speak to that. I'm sorry.
Mr. Allison. So, in this particular instance, this was
found by us, and then it became public.
Mr. Russell. Yeah. And that's really kind of the point I'm
trying to make, is that the hallmark of a professional
organization, it discovers its own warts.
And, you know, Mr. Chairman, with regard to one of our
colleagues using the line of reasoning that, you know, the
irrelevancy of the Federal Air Marshal program due to sexual
misconduct incidents, I am mindful of the number of Members of
Congress over the years that have committed sexual misconduct.
One list has over 60. But no one would suggest that maybe we
ought to eliminate Congress because of these trysts. And I
think it's important to note that.
It doesn't mean that we don't have problems. I think you
have displayed some professionalism here today in how you go
after these incidents and that we have to do them. Because of
the secretive nature of some of the work, a lot of the good
news stories, intercepts, the incidents of terrorism that never
happened, will never go reported. And so I just wanted to say
thanks.
But there is, obviously, a lot more that can be done. Now,
you have detailed some of those things in, for lack of a better
term, establishing a good command climate or a good, you know,
control of the organization. Alcohol, wine, women, and song has
been the bane of law enforcers and soldiers for millennia.
What other than these sensing sessions or alcohol
intervention programs, what other than that, though, are you
doing to directly interface somebody's moral conduct and moral
fiber so that when you are not present and they are by
themselves that they will do the right thing? Could you speak
to that?
Mr. Allison. Sure.
As you stated, Mr. Congressman, it comes down to individual
accountability, right? That's what it comes to. So, as leaders,
we have the opportunity to influence people, suggest and coach
and mentor them that they will do the right thing. And the good
news is the majority of our people do do the right thing.
I've had townhalls where I've had people--let me give you
an example. I started the job on June 1, which was a Sunday. On
Wednesday, I was in the Baltimore field office in 2014. I had a
townhall. Probably 75 people in that room. In August, there was
a gentleman who found himself in Des Moines, Iowa, on a DUI at
11:30 night and tried to make his flight the next day. He was
in that townhall, sitting right there, taking notes for his
squad. He's got to go. And he's gone.
And so you do your best to try to reach people, convince
them to do the right thing. A lot of us do it because of a
sense of duty and purpose and pride in the mission. Maybe some
people are just here to collect a check. That's fine as long as
they're doing the right thing. Welcome aboard. But you've got
to do the right thing.
Mr. Russell. Well, one thing that might be helpful, and,
you know, with appreciation to the sensitive nature of the
work, is the scope and scale to show incidents vice number of
people that are doing the job.
I'm not going to ask you to speak to those numbers here,
but it might be very useful for us to see the scope and scale,
that really, you know, these are either a major percentage or a
problem, or maybe they're in isolation and they've been
discovered internally by your organization.
And, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Chaffetz. I thank the gentleman.
We will now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr.
DeSaulnier, for 5 minutes.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member.
Director, first, I want to join the positive comments about
your management. It is really a relief to hear it off of, as
the chairman said in his opening comments, some of the other
hearings we have had and the difficulty of what would seem like
just commonsense management leadership.
But I wanted to, besides congratulating you and thanking
you, talk about a specific program that you have developed--it
is my understanding you developed--that Mr. Russell sort of
mentioned, the alcohol awareness campaign.
Could you just walk the committee through how--what was the
genesis of you developing the campaign and, sort of, what the
campaign does for prevention and intervention and then the
testing protocol that would be able to intervene after you have
done the prevention and intervention?
Mr. Allison. Sure.
So, Mr. Congressman, I was telling the chairman and the
ranking member that, having been in Inspection, I saw where a
lot of misconduct was associated with what I call ``Mr.
Booze.'' And so what we wanted to do was give our employees,
you know, an opportunity and let them know that if you have a
problem--which is very difficult, as I have come to learn--come
forth, and we're going to help you, recognizing that most
people don't have a problem; they just, you know, had one too
many.
So the idea was to provide an avenue, an educational forum,
and everybody had to take it. So now I know either you have a
problem--if you don't have a problem, that means you know
better. Right? So that is the either/or scenario that that
created.
A lot of positive reviews by the workforce. It's very gut-
wrenching when you hear these two gentlemen--and I hope they're
watching today. Very courageous for them to come forth and tell
their story. And both of them almost died. I'm happy to share
it with anybody who would like to see it, if you so desire.
So, after that was done, because the positions are
designated as critical sensitive--national security critical
sensitive positions, we are subjected to random drug and
alcohol testing. And it's what we all know that government
employees experience. You get called into the office on a
particular day, and you have to submit to a urinalysis. So that
is ongoing.
Because of some of the activity that I saw overseas when I
was in Inspection, we actually developed an extension of that
program based upon our authority where we actually trained,
equipped, and certified TSA employees with the Office of
Inspection to just pop up on international destinations at
random. And basically they're greeting people, but if you look
like you're drunk or smell like you're drunk, you're going to
get tested. So it's reasonable suspicion. Not really popular
with the workforce, obviously. But, as I talk to people and
explain what we're trying to do, to try to get a handle on
these incidents, they understand it.
So that's how we orchestrated this whole program, and
that's how those processes work together.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Do you think there are lessons learned,
from your experience, that should be shared either with your
sister agencies in the Federal Government or with public safety
in general?
Mr. Allison. You know, I wasn't looking for credit when we
did it, but as I shared it with people, they do think it's a
valuable tool. Because, at the end of the day, as government
executives and public servants, as we're doing today, you will
be called to ask, what are you doing about it? Right? But if we
can help people, if one person comes forward, that's great. And
we had a couple people come forward. But, as I've come to
learn, it's very tough.
Mr. DeSaulnier. I appreciate your work.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Chaffetz. I thank the gentleman.
We will now recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr.
Grothman, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Grothman. Yeah. It's a little disturbing that you have
to go through a program to tell people they shouldn't be
working while drunk, but I'm glad you're having success with
your program.
About how many air marshals do we have out there?
Mr. Allison. Sir, I can't discuss the number of Federal Air
Marshals in public. I'd be glad to speak to you in private and
go into great detail.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. And what do they do during the day? Is
their job they're supposed to kind of be the policemen in the
air?
Mr. Allison. Well, pursuant to the Aviation Transportation
Security Act that was passed back in 2002, after 9/11, we are
responsible for detecting and deterring and defeating criminal
acts, which means we are aviation security specialists on U.S.-
flagged air carriers.
Mr. Grothman. So does that mean basically their job
consists of sitting on an airplane and being the policemen?
Mr. Allison. Their job is to be security, yes, aviation
security.
Mr. Grothman. Do they hang around the airports otherwise,
or what is my job if I spend 40 hours a week as an air marshal?
What am I doing?
Mr. Allison. The majority of the time of the air marshals,
they're flying. They're actually on flights.
Mr. Grothman. Last year--and I was trying to tell from your
budget, make a wild stab at how many people you had working
there. I mean, I've never heard on a personal level in the
times that I've flown or anybody else that I've ever talked to
has flown, you know, a time when somebody was arrested on an
airplane. I'm sure it happens.
Last year, how many incidents in which somebody had to be
arrested or removed from an airplane did your guys come up
with?
Mr. Allison. I don't know the number, but I would be
confident telling you it wasn't that many.
Mr. Grothman. Yeah, that's what I wondered. I wondered
whether there were more incidents involving the air marshals or
whether the air marshals are detecting more incidents. Could
you give a stab at that?
Mr. Allison. Well, my response, Mr. Congressman, would be,
we are responsible for providing security on these flights. I'm
not so sure the metric of an arrest is a fair metric. I got it,
it's an easy one to say, how many arrests have you made?
I would direct the fact that the Federal Air Marshal
Service, in conjunction with the intelligence community, all
those analysts, the analysts at the Terrorist Screening Center,
everybody in Department of Homeland Security who's committed to
securing our country and the transportation system and the fact
that we haven't had another attempt like 9/11. We do know that
there is an active threat against aviation to this country.
There are a number of groups that still want to attack
aviation.
So I understand when someone says, ``How many arrests have
you made?'', or, ``How many terrorists have you stopped?'' I
can meet with you in private. I think you would be very
surprised with some data that I would show you. But I do
understand the question and where it comes from. But I would
have to be honest with you, I don't think that's a fair metric.
Mr. Grothman. Okay.
Is it--can your guys ever have a drink in an airport?
Mr. Allison. Drinking on duty is specifically--it's not
allowed.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. I mean, whether--can they ever drink in
an airport, though?
Mr. Allison. If you're--are you suggesting on duty?
Mr. Grothman. No, just period. I mean--I suppose you're not
supposed to have a drink beforehand either. I just wondered,
you know----
Mr. Allison. No, I mean, we have a rule that there is no
drinking 10 hours before a flight.
Mr. Grothman. Oh, okay.
Mr. Allison. I'm sorry. I didn't understand your question.
Mr. Grothman. And can you tell me--I guess everything here
is secret--are they on all U.S., like, flagged carriers or just
carriers that leave the United States or----
Mr. Allison. Yes, so we have authority to fly only on U.S.-
flagged carriers. There are some 26,000 flights per day.
Obviously, we're not on all of those flights. But we also do
foreign and domestic flights.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. And does that mean, if I'm flying
United, I don't know if they do, from London to Rome, I might
get one of your guys on there? Or does that mean it would have
to be a flight coming or going from the United States?
Mr. Allison. If it's a U.S. air carrier, which I don't know
if there's one that goes from London to Rome, but if it's a
U.S. air carrier, there could be an air marshal on the flight.
So we do do some international-international flights, Tokyo to
Thailand and Amsterdam, I think, and another location.
Mr. Grothman. Okay.
And are you ever involved in stuff other than on the
airplane? I mean, might your guys just be hanging around the
airport looking for stuff, or is it basically on an airplane
type job?
Mr. Allison. Yes, sir. We manage the VIPR program. I don't
know if you've heard of that, the Visible Intermodal Prevention
and Response. And so there was legislation and appropriation
given to the Federal Air Marshal Service to provide a visible
deterrent within the aviation and surface venues. And you may
have seen that at Union Station on the recent holiday with the
Secretary.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. Thank you very much.
I will yield the remainder of my time.
Chairman Chaffetz. I thank the gentleman.
We now recognize the ranking member, Mr. Cummings, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much.
Director Allison, let me ask you this. I was listening to
you talk about being proactive, and you also talked a little
bit earlier about hiring and trying to make sure you hire the
right people.
And, in this committee, we have been dealing with the
Secret Service. In my community, we have been dealing with
Baltimore City Police.
And, you know, I think, a lot of times--when I hire people,
I look for two things: I look for smart people and people with
passion for the mission. Got to have both. One without the
other doesn't work. Because if they've got passion for the
mission--if they're smart and they've got passion for the
mission, like you said, there are certain things they're just
not going to do. They're not going to do it. I mean, in other
words, negative things, going against the mission. It's sort of
like going against yourself.
And I'm listening to you, and I was thinking, you know, I
think people can supervise with a culture of fear or with a
culture of inclusiveness and excellence. And it's just like--
you know, I sit on the board of the Naval Academy, and there's
not a time that I meet with those midshipmen after our board
meetings that I am not filled with just phenomenal admiration.
You know why? Because they have both. They have a passion for
the mission and this country, and they're smart. And so they
basically sort of self-govern. I guess that's where you're
trying to get to. People self-govern because they want to be a
part of the elite of the elite.
And I was just wondering--I mean, I just kind of throw
those concepts out there. Because I think sometimes we approach
things from the backdoor with ``gotcha, gotcha, gotcha.'' And I
think there's a natural inclination, if you are supervising
with a ``gotcha,'' somebody is going to try to duck and dodge
in the process. But if everybody is being lifted up, my theory
is the people who are not about the mission are going to fall
off. Because you know why? The people who are about it aren't
going to tolerate it. They're just not going to tolerate it. Or
the person who's not about the mission is going to feel so
uncomfortable that it's just not--they know it's not going to
work.
And I just wanted to--I mean, I've listened to all of what
you've said, and I'm just wondering, how does what I just said,
if any of it, fit into your philosophy of supervision?
And the reason why it's so important, you know, the
chairman is right. I mean, we have folk come in here all the
time, and it's almost like they're--they are in supervisory
roles, but they seem as if they don't want to admit if there is
a problem. And if there is a problem, they don't want to take
the appropriate action to address it, with due process of
course.
So I was just curious as to, you know, your feelings on
that.
Mr. Allison. Sure, Mr. Congressman.
You know, leadership philosophy--I comport myself with the
philosophy of: Mission first, people always. Right? Those
aren't diametrically opposed.
And you're right, I think somewhere along the way--and,
again, I've had some tremendous opportunities working for the
government. I attended some wonderful leadership courses, and
we all learn and grow as we progress through the Federal
Government and you get more and more responsibility. So you are
right, it is a learning exercise.
And specifically to your point, as you were talking, I
wrote down something I had heard along the way, which is,
``It's better to be a charismatic leader that inspires
performance than a tyrannical one that demands it.'' And that's
where we want to be, because that's when you're going to get
the most bang for your buck.
As I said to you guys last night, if we can inspire people,
coach people, mentor people, instill the mission, we're going
to be in a lot better place, rather than waiting and being that
person that you described that says, you know, I gotcha. That
does not work. We know that does not work, I know that does not
work.
So we need to be in a place where every person in the
organization has pride in the organization, some degree of
pride--a lot, a little, some degree of pride. You're not just
here to collect a check. And, you know, once we get to that
place, that's the place we want to be. You're exactly right.
Mr. Cummings. Now, one of the things that--I mean, how do
you feel about the morale in your agency overall?
Mr. Allison. The morale in the organization?
Mr. Cummings. Yeah, the morale.
Mr. Allison. The only way I have to gauge that, Mr.
Congressman, is through the surveys that come out every year,
and they're not good.
You know, we had one when I first took over that I headed.
And I own it. I'm not making any excuses. I'm in charge, so
that--you know, that was done before I got there, but I own it.
It was very low.
So that is challenging, you know; how do get the morale up?
You know, in some respects, morale is an individual decision.
We all have an opportunity to come to work every day and decide
how we're going to feel. My morale's high. I feel good when I
come into work. I'm energized, I'm excited.
And I can create the environment for morale, right? I can
do things that are fair, that are transparent. We can
communicate with our employees. We can let them know that we
support them.
So that is a challenge. And, you know, the Department, as
you're well aware, has taken on this quite feverishly over the
couple years, so, as senior leaders, we all are working on it.
Mr. Cummings. Yeah.
Last question. And I'll ask you and Ms. Book. I want to be
real clear: So you all feel that you have the tools that you
need? You don't need anything else from us, is that right, to
deal with discipline and things of that nature?
Ms. Book?
Ms. Book. Thank you. Yes, we have all the tools that we
need to deal with the discipline.
Mr. Cummings. All right.
Director?
Mr. Allison. I believe the same, as well.
Mr. Cummings. Okay.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Chaffetz. We now recognize the gentleman from
North Carolina, Mr. Walker, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Walker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Director Allison, when did you start? When was your
official start date?
Mr. Allison. June 1, 2014. It was a Sunday.
Mr. Walker. Okay. All right. Okay. So you're, what, 18, 19
months into the job?
Mr. Allison. Something like that, sir.
Mr. Walker. Okay.
About how many hours a week do you work on this process?
I've got a hunch, but I wanted to hear from you.
Mr. Allison. Probably about 11 hours a day.
Mr. Walker. Okay. Obviously, you do your homework because 3
months ago you remembered our conversation from the Committee
on Homeland Security conversation. And I appreciate you doing
that.
And if I can think back with you, I believe I remember we
talked about some of the abuses of the Federal Air Marshal from
a financial or fiscal standpoint, some of the first-class
flying, and how are we trimming back and how are we doing. In
those 3 or 4 months, can you just mention, have we made some
improvements there?
Mr. Allison. Sure. I actually went back immediately--we
have an industry engagement organization. They're very
aggressive. They have a lot of reach-back into the industry.
And I proposed those series of questions to them the very next
day, and I've actually went back to them a couple times.
So we haven't heard anything, which is good news. But, at
the same time, we made it very clear, if you are aware of
abuses, if you, you know, are knowledgeable of abuses, report
it, and we'll look into it.
Mr. Walker. Well, it is kind of tough to acknowledge this,
because you're not going out in groups. This is kind of on an
honor system, which is kind of what led us to this other
predicament and situation.
So, as far as self-reporting, you lead and supervise and
direct an environment that's kind of tough when you're out
there by yourself. Is that fair?
Mr. Allison. That is fair. But with respect to the context
of the question that you asked, if members of the airline
industry believe that there are abuses, they have complete
autonomy and freedom to report those incidents to us.
Mr. Walker. I mean, does that happen? Do they know that? I
mean, I mean, is there some kind of protocol----
Mr. Allison. Yes.
Mr. Walker. --that people in the airline industry know who
to contact when they see abuses?
Mr. Allison. There are routine meetings between this
industry engagement and the airlines. We actually run a liaison
unit within the Federal Air Marshal Service that has constant
dialogue with the airlines.
Mr. Walker. Two more points I want to make quickly during
my time.
As we said months ago, we talked about the fiscal problems
and how much we're spending. I think Chairman Duncan mentioned
close to a billion dollars since we've launched this program.
So you have from that--people have very good arguments as far
as the concern about that. Now we have one that kind of hits it
from another angle, which I'll call behavioral problems.
You see where it makes it tough to say this program
continues to be legitimized as far as something needed, and I'd
like for you to maybe take a minute to respond to that.
Mr. Allison. Sure. That's a fair observation, but I think
an equally fair observation is to acknowledge the--every
organization has misconduct. No organization is immune, no
profession. You know, even the hallowed halls of which we sit
here today has seen its share, on both sides of the aisle.
Mr. Walker. Are you sure about that? No, I'm just kidding.
Mr. Allison. But I think what you're asking, what the
committee is asking is a fair question: What are you doing
about it?
I want--you know, the majority of the men and women behave
themselves, and they're dedicated employees, and they do a
great job. Now, if it got to the point where, you know, a huge
percentage started involving themselves in this activity, I'd
be spending more than 11 hours a day in the office. But that is
not the case.
Mr. Walker. Let me get to one final point, and then I'll
yield back the balance of my time.
Explain or, if you would, lead me through this for us, how
often the TSA or the DHS does a comprehensive field study in
assessing the threats. Does it vary? Is it seasonal? I mean, is
it up and down? What are you seeing out there? And help me
understand why that's continued to be necessary.
Mr. Allison. So it's not by season, it's not by quarter;
it's daily. So myself and the executive staff at TSA, we sit in
intel meetings every morning. And the intelligence
professionals at TSA, they're reaching back to the intelligence
community, and they're getting that data, and, you know,
they're providing briefings.
And I would offer any member of this committee--and we've
done it with other Members of Congress--to join us at that
morning meeting.
Mr. Walker. Ms. Book, Director Allison, I appreciate your
being here today, even sitting through a vote.
With that, I'll yield back to the chairman. Thank you.
Chairman Chaffetz. Thank you.
I'll recognize myself for the second round here. We do have
a vote on the floor, and we will wrap up this hearing rather
soon, but I do have a few more questions.
Director, the three individuals from Chicago, what would
you like to see have happen to them?
Mr. Allison. I am confident that they will be shown the
door. And that's what I'd like to see.
Chairman Chaffetz. Should they be prosecuted?
Mr. Allison. I would like to see them prosecuted, but the
reality of the way the work is done and caseloads--and I'm not
privy to say whether they can or not. It would be nice, but
that's not reality, right? There's a lot of cases that don't
get prosecuted.
Chairman Chaffetz. And this is one of the challenges. We
have an organization, you have a director here who's trying to
do the right thing, weed out the bad apples, but if the
Department of Justice doesn't get up off their seat and
actually prosecute some of these cases, there won't be the full
extent of the consequences that I think is important for all
the Federal employees to see, not only to the people who are
doing misdeeds, to get the sense of justice here that, you
know, you better get your act in order or it may happen to you,
but also all the good apples, to know that there are
consequences, that we are looking out for the 90-plus percent
of the people who do do the job right, they do work hard and
show up on time, and they don't drink and they don't do all
those things. But they all know what's happening, they know
when somebody else is messing up. And when nobody's held
accountable and there's no accountability and no justice,
there's no justice. And it frustrates those employees.
What is the disposition of--Ms. Book, what's the
disposition of Robert Bray? What's going on with him? He's the
former Director.
Ms. Book. Yes. He is retired.
Chairman Chaffetz. Did he get prosecuted?
Ms. Book. No, he did not.
Chairman Chaffetz. There's a case that's going on that
involves somebody who was reassigning flights so they could
meet up with other people for some sexual type of rendezvous.
What's the disposition of that case?
Ms. Book. That case is still under investigation.
Chairman Chaffetz. So we have several people involved in
that investigation. Have there been any charges levied so far?
Ms. Book. As far as I know, it's still under investigation.
Chairman Chaffetz. Still under investigation, still no
charges.
And here we have the case of three people in Chicago. The
person who retired or resigned, however you want to term it,
what's going to happen to that person? Any prosecutions?
Director Allison?
Mr. Allison. I do not know, sir.
Chairman Chaffetz. My concern is that he's going to be
simply allowed to retire. He'll get his full benefits, all the
other benefits, yet he--he was entrusted with a gun on an
airplane to protect 100-plus people on any given flight, and
for him to just simply walk away is just not right. And you
know what? Losing a security clearance, eh, I don't know that
that cuts it.
Director?
Mr. Allison. So I don't know if he was in the organization
long enough to receive a retirement or any benefits. Obviously,
as Federal employees, you accumulate tenure at different
increments and you are entitled to something. But the fact of
the matter is, you know, anybody can leave when they want to,
right? So if you know you're under discipline and you say,
``I'm resigning,'' we can't stop people from resigning.
Now, if the facts and circumstances lead one to believe
that--or we can get a prosecution, perhaps--as we know,
unemployed people get prosecuted all the time. But we still
will drive forward on our personnel security process, so, as a
minimum, this person probably won't see Federal service anymore
and maybe not even law enforcement, because they're going to
come back and call us.
Chairman Chaffetz. I hope so. I hope they do the calling.
The second person or the other person who was not involved
and engaged in the potential disability fraud, what's the
disposition of that person? They're still employed by the
Federal Air Marshals?
Mr. Allison. Well--so, the Chicago incident, all three
individuals indefinitely suspended, one individual resigned. So
one of the two people you're asking about is on indefinite
suspension.
Chairman Chaffetz. With or without pay?
Mr. Allison. Indefinite suspension is--any type of
suspension is without pay. A regular suspension is usually
defined by a period of time--3 days, 7 days, 45 days, et
cetera. Indefinite suspension has no time limit. So he will sit
on indefinite suspension until the conclusion of this
investigation.
Chairman Chaffetz. And do you have discretion to make that
decision?
Mr. Allison. Yes, we do.
Chairman Chaffetz. Now, this is the disconnect. And I was
mentioning this to Ranking Member Cummings. We have had similar
situations in other departments and agencies and some within
Homeland Security. We've had the Administrator of the EPA--
obviously not part of Homeland Security--but we did have the
Director of the Secret Service here, and we've had the former
Director--she's now resigned--of--Administrator of the Drug
Enforcement Agency, all three of which led us to believe that
their hands were essentially tied on revoking of security
clearances.
I like the fact that you have discretion and you can make
this decision and that you can move forward. Can you help me?
Can you provide any insight? Why is it that you have that
ability and you're exercising it, as opposed to these others,
who say, ah, there's nothing I can do?
Mr. Allison. Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure. I can't
speak for the Service or DEA. I can tell you unequivocally this
is what we do. You know, we abide with strict guidance--or
strict adherence to the personnel security guidelines, and we
are lawfully exercising what's our authority to do.
Chairman Chaffetz. And I think one of the major differences
here is leadership. And I'm not saying you got it perfect, and
I think it's important we continue to engage with you in
oversight. But your openness and willingness to engage in that
oversight, your proactive communication with the committee
speaks volumes about you and your organization.
It is imperative that we figure this out for other
departments and agencies, because I do think there's a lack of
leadership. It leads to a negative culture, and I think it
leads to inaction. And that inaction festers. If you don't dig
out the root of the problem, it becomes a bigger infection. And
I like the fact that you're addressing this head-on. I
encourage you to please, please continue to do that.
And to the rest of the Federal Government, let's learn from
these lessons. Rout out the waste, fraud, and abuse. Applaud
and support the good men and women, the overwhelming majority
who do it and do it the right way.
And, with that, I will yield back.
We will recognize the ranking member as we go.
Mr. Cummings. Mr. Chairman, I'll be very brief.
First of all, Director Allison and Ms. Book, I don't know
whether you watch our hearings often?
Mr. Allison. I've--I've watched every one of them.
Mr. Cummings. You must have an exciting life.
The----
Chairman Chaffetz. That's a long flight he's on, I tell
you.
Mr. Cummings. But rarely are we able to jointly give these
kind of compliments. And that's why I say that. But they're
meant very sincerely. It's always good to have an example of
what should be done. And I think that now that we hear about
what you're doing, it helps us.
And I know you--I know you want to stay in your lane. I got
that. But you are presenting an example of the way it should be
done. And now, you know, we're going to--I hate to tell you
this, but we're going to hold other agencies to the same
standard. Because when they come in, we're going to ask, why
can't they do these things?
But, again, thank you.
And an interesting thing, too. When I asked did you have--
did you need any additional authority. I think what the
difference is, other folks actually--you all take the authority
that you have and use it. Other folks don't always do that. And
I think that's the big difference.
With that, I want to thank you all very much. And I want
to--by the way, we really want to thank all of the employees of
your agency. We appreciate what they do.
A lot of times--you know, my mother used to, when she
prayed, she would say, ``Thank you, Lord, for protecting me
from my seen and unseen dangers.'' And so, when things aren't
seen, a lot of times people don't know what your agents are
able to avoid. They only hear about the things that go wrong,
and then you catch somebody or something like that, but I know
there's a lot of unseen things that they also address. And I
want to thank all of them on behalf of a grateful Congress.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Chaffetz. Well said. Thank you.
The committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:46 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[all]