[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
SECURING AMERICA'S TRANSPORTATION AND MARITIME SYSTEMS: A REVIEW OF THE
FISCAL YEAR 2020 BUDGET REQUESTS FOR THE TRANSPORTATION SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION AND THE U.S. COAST GUARD
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND
MARITIME SECURITY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 9, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-11
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
37-451 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 HOMELAND SECURITY
Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi, Chairman
Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas Mike Rogers, Alabama
James R. Langevin, Rhode Island Peter T. King, New York
Cedric L. Richmond, Louisiana Michael T. McCaul, Texas
Donald M. Payne, Jr., New Jersey John Katko, New York
Kathleen M. Rice, New York John Ratcliffe, Texas
J. Luis Correa, California Mark Walker, North Carolina
Xochitl Torres Small, New Mexico Clay Higgins, Louisiana
Max Rose, New York Debbie Lesko, Arizona
Lauren Underwood, Illinois Mark Green, Tennessee
Elissa Slotkin, Michigan Van Taylor, Texas
Emanuel Cleaver, Missouri John Joyce, Pennsylvania
Al Green, Texas Dan Crenshaw, Texas
Yvette D. Clarke, New York Michael Guest, Mississippi
Dina Titus, Nevada
Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey
Nanette Diaz Barragan, California
Val Butler Demings, Florida
Hope Goins, Staff Director
Chris Vieson, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND MARITIME SECURITY
J. Luis Correa, California, Chairman
Emanuel Cleaver, Missouri Debbie Lesko, Arizona, Ranking
Dina Titus, Nevada Member
Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey John Katko, New York
Nanette Diaz Barragan, California John Ratcliffe, Texas
Val Butler Deming, Florida Mark Green, Tennessee
Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi (ex Mike Rogers, Alabama (ex officio)
officio)
Alex Marston, Subcomittee Staff Director
Kyle Klein, Minority Subcomittee Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Statements
The Honorable J. Luis Correa, a Representative in Congress From
the State of California, and Chairman, Subcommittee on
Transportation and Maritime Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 1
Prepared Statement............................................. 3
The Honorable Debbie Lesko, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Arizona, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Transportation and Maritime Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 4
Prepared Statement............................................. 5
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Mississippi, and Chairman, Committee on
Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 6
Prepared Statement............................................. 8
Witnesses
Mr. David P. Pekoske, Administrator, Transportation Security
Administration, U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 10
Prepared Statement............................................. 11
Admiral Karl L. Schultz, Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard:
Oral Statement................................................. 14
Prepared Statement............................................. 16
Appendix
Questions From Chairman J. Luis Correa for David P. Pekoske...... 43
Question From Ranking Member Debbie Lesko for David P. Pekoske... 47
Questions From Ranking Member Mike Rogers for David P. Pekoske... 47
Questions From Chairman J. Luis Correa for Karl L. Schultz....... 51
Questions From Ranking Member Mike Rogers for Karl L. Schultz.... 52
SECURING AMERICA'S TRANSPORTATION AND MARITIME SYSTEMS: A REVIEW OF THE
FISCAL YEAR 2020 BUDGET REQUESTS FOR THE TRANSPORTATION SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION AND THE U.S. COAST GUARD
----------
Tuesday, April 9, 2019
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Subcommittee on Transportation
and Maritime Security,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in
room 310, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. J. Luis Correa
(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Correa, Cleaver, Titus, Watson
Coleman, Barragan, Demings, Thompson (ex officio), Lesko, and
Katko.
Mr. Correa. Good morning, everyone. The Subcommittee on
Transportation and Maritime Security will now come to order.
The committee is meeting today to receive testimony on the
President's fiscal year 2020 budget request for Transportation
Security Administration, or TSA, and the U.S. Coast Guard.
I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
Today's hearing will examine, again, the President's 2020
budget request. I would like to thank the administrator of TSA,
Mr. Pekoske, for being here; our commander of the Coast Guard,
Admiral Schultz, for appearing before this subcommittee today.
It is often said that the budget proposals that we reflect
are priorities. If so, this budget proposal confirms that the
President's priorities are sorely misguided and, in fact,
dangerous. The proposal reflects an oversight of the real
threats facing the homeland and how to secure against them.
This budget places funding for a border wall above all else.
Take, for example, TSA. Again, sir, Administrator, I want to
thank you for the great job your TSA workers do protecting our
citizens as they fly.
The TSA, as you know, faces a complex threat picture and
constant resource challenges. We have seen in recent years how
the growing number of passenger volumes threaten to outpace
TSA's ability to securely screen passengers, as long waiting
lines and times have grown and created chaos for the aviation
industry. TSA has struggled to address persistent morale and
attrition problems as well, due in part to staffing shortages.
The recent Government shutdown highlighted to the American
public that many TSA officers live paycheck to paycheck. In the
face of these challenges, the President has proposed cutting
TSA's front-line staffing by 815 full-time positions and 50
canine teams when compared to currently-enacted levels. The
President proposed placing additional burdens on the aviation
industry by eliminating critical programs, such as the Law
Enforcement Reimbursement Program and the TSA staffing of exit
lanes, as well as cutting support for programs like the VIPR
program and the Transit Security Grant Program. All these help
protect our vulnerable surface transportation system.
This is no way to fund a National security agency. Clearly,
the TSA would struggle to operate under these cuts, and the
American people would be left vulnerable to attacks.
As for the Coast Guard, the proposal is not much better.
Like the TSA, the Coast Guard faces constant resource
challenges as it executes its multi-faceted mission. For years,
we have asked the Coast Guard to do more with less. Though they
have always risen to the challenge, no organization can be
sustained indefinitely by being insufficiently funded. Our
long-term failure to invest sufficiently in the fleet
recapitalization has begun to affect this Coast Guard's mission
readiness.
If we do not invest in the construction and maintenance of
the crucial assets and infrastructure, the Coast Guard's
operational capabilities will be reduced at a time when you are
mostly and sorely needed. Unfortunately, the President's budget
again fails to make the investments needed.
Although the budget proposes several investments in new
cutters and aircraft, it does not include sufficient funding
for long lead time materials to keep the Coast Guard's polar
security cutters plans on track. The budget also does not
provide enough funding to upgrade Coast Guard helicopter
assets. Sadly, the President proposed zero funding to begin
reducing the Coast Guard's $2.6 billion backlog of shore
infrastructure maintenance and recapitalization projects.
The Coast Guard will need to scale back its operations as
it is forced to decommission assets without replacing them on-
line.
Already the Coast Guard estimates that it is aware of 80
percent of the targets of interest moving in the maritime
environment, including movement, migrants, and illegal drugs.
But you only have the--you can only target approximately 20
percent of those targets that you identify.
Despite those constraints, last year, the Coast Guard
seized more tons of cocaine and detained more suspected
smugglers than all the other Federal agencies combined. If the
President truly wants to keep drugs from coming across our
borders, he should fully fund the Coast Guard. Instead, the
President insists on prioritizing his border wall above all
else, including the security of the American people. Instead of
having Mexico pay for the wall, the President proposes cutting
over a billion dollars from the TSA and Coast Guard budgets to
pay for the wall.
This budget proposal is dead on arrival since Congress will
not entertain these cuts.
Again, I want to thank the TSA officers who serve as our
front-line security aviation, the Federal air marshals who
serve as our last line of defense, and the men and women of the
Coast Guard who protect the American interests at home and
across the globe.
Despite these difficult challenges and missing paychecks,
these patriots have come to put mission first, and I thank them
very much for their service.
Again, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today
about the importance of their work of their agencies to keep
the American people secure.
[The statement of Chairman Correa follows:]
Statement of Chairman J. Luis Correa
April 9, 2019
It is often said that budget proposals are a reflection of
priorities. If so, this budget proposal confirms that the President's
priorities are sorely misguided and, in fact, dangerous. The proposal
reflects an ignorance of the threats facing the homeland and how to
secure against them, as it places funding for a border wall above all
else.
Take, for example, the TSA. The TSA faces a complex threat picture
and constant resource challenges. We have seen in recent years how
growing passenger volumes threaten to outpace TSA's ability to securely
screen passengers, as long wait times have at times thrown the aviation
system into chaos. And, TSA has struggled to address persistent morale
and attrition problems, due in part to staffing shortages. The recent
Government shutdown highlighted to the American public that many TSA
officers live paycheck to paycheck.
In the face of these challenges, the President has proposed cutting
TSA's front-line staffing by 815 full-time positions and 50 canine
teams when compared with currently-enacted levels. He also proposes
placing additional burdens on the aviation industry by eliminating
critical security programs such as the Law Enforcement Officer
Reimbursement Program and TSA's staffing of exit lanes, as well as
cutting support for programs like the ``VIPR'' Program and the Transit
Security Grant Program that help protect vulnerable surface
transportation systems. This is no way to fund a National security
agency. Let me be clear: The TSA would struggle to operate under these
cuts, and the American people would be left vulnerable to attacks.
As for the Coast Guard the proposal is not much better. Like the
TSA, the Coast Guard faces constant resource challenges as it executes
its multi-faceted mission. For years, we have asked the Coast Guard to
do more with less, and though they have always risen to the challenge,
no organization can be sustained indefinitely by insufficient funding.
Our long-term failure to invest sufficiently in fleet recapitalization
has begun to affect the Coast Guard's mission readiness. If we do not
invest in the construction and maintenance of critical assets and
infrastructure now, the Coast Guard's operational capabilities will be
reduced at a time when they are sorely needed. Unfortunately, the
President's budget fails to make the investments needed.
Although the budget proposes several investments in new cutters and
aircraft, it does not include sufficient funding for long-lead time
materials to keep the Coast Guard's Polar Security Cutter plans on
track. It also does not provide enough funding to upgrade Coast Guard
helicopter assets. Strikingly, the President proposes zero funding to
begin reducing the Coast Guard's $2.6 billion backlog of shore
infrastructure maintenance and recapitalization projects. The Coast
Guard will need to scale back its operations as it is forced to
decommission assets without replacements on-line.
Already, the Coast Guard estimates that it is aware of 80 percent
of the targets of interest moving in the maritime environment--
including movements of migrants and illegal drugs--but is only able to
target approximately 20 percent for interdiction due to resource
constraints. Despite those constraints, last year the Coast Guard
seized more tons of cocaine and detained more suspected smugglers than
all other Federal agencies combined. If the President truly wants to
keep drugs from coming across our borders, he should fully fund the
Coast Guard.
Instead, the President insists on prioritizing his ineffective
border wall above all else--including the security of the American
people. Instead of having Mexico pay for the wall, the President
proposes cutting over a billion dollars from the TSA and Coast Guard
budgets to pay for the wall. This budget proposal is dead on arrival,
since Congress will not entertain these cuts.
Again, I would like to thank the TSA officers who serve as our
front line to secure aviation; the Federal Air Marshals who serve as
our last line of defense; and the men and women of the Coast Guard, who
protect American interests at home and across the globe. Despite
difficult circumstances and missing paychecks, these patriots have
continued to put the mission first, and I thank them for their service.
Mr. Correa. With that, now I would like to recognize the
Ranking Member of the subcommittee, the gentlelady from
Arizona, Mrs. Lesko, for an opening statement.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning to everyone that is here today. Good morning
to Mr. Chairman and the Members and to the director and the
admiral and all those here listening today. I am pleased that
the subcommittee is meeting today to receive testimony from our
distinguished guests on the President's fiscal year 2020 budget
request for both the Transportation Security Administration and
the United States Coast Guard.
I used to be the appropriations Chairman in the areas in
the Senate, so it is always a difficult but interesting
subject. In our case, it was the Governor versus the
legislature. In this case, the President dealing with the
Congress.
I am pleased that this year's $7.8 billion budget request
for TSA supports robust deployment of new checkpoint
technologies, like computed tomography and credential
authentication technologies that will make the travelers'
public airport screening experience safer and more efficient.
So I think that is good news.
I am hopeful that the successful fielding of technologies
like CT will mean that, some day soon, Americans will be able
to leave their liquids and laptops in their bags as they go
through screening. That will make a lot of people happy; I know
that.
I am also pleased that this budget request finds
efficiencies that will save taxpayers money, because we have a
huge deficit and debt in our country that I believe poses a
National security threat. The budget includes tens of millions
of dollars saved through eliminating contract redundancies, I
think that was $40 million we saved on that, and reducing the
size of the headquarters, which I believe was $24 million.
We know that transportation remains a persistent target for
terrorist groups, so it is critical that TSA continuously
strives to be innovative and ahead of the curve on emerging
threats.
With a strong National economy leading to a steady growth
in passenger volume at U.S. airports, which I can attest to
from flying back and forth every weekend and the plane is
totally packed, TSA's mission is really more important than
ever.
Similarly, the United States Coast Guard has broad homeland
security mission sets for migrant and drug interdiction as well
as port security that are supported in this year's $11.3
billion budget request. As the only branch of the U.S. military
that operates within the Department of Homeland Security as
well as the Department of Defense, the Coast Guard's uniqueness
reflects the critical role it plays in protecting America's
maritime systems.
Recently, Congress has appropriated funding to support new
vessels, including the Polar Security Cutter and the National
Security Cutter programs, which I am happy we did. That will
help achieve mission readiness and provide our servicemen and -
women better tools to protect the homeland.
While much-needed attention remains focused on our
Southwest Border, as was mentioned, it is also important to
remember the critical role of the U.S. Coast Guard, what role
it plays in protecting our communities by interdicting drugs
and migrants attempting to cross into the United States via our
maritime border.
I have been told, Admiral, that sanctuary State and city
laws, in some areas dependent upon a robust Coast Guard
presence, are inhibiting cooperation between State and local
law enforcement and the Coast Guard. This is concerning.
Homeland security necessitates close coordination and positive
working relationships among Federal law enforcement and State
and local partners. I am worried that the resource challenges
that the Coast Guard already faces are only further amplified
in situations like this, so I look forward to hearing from you
to discuss the importance of State and local partnerships.
Again, I wish to thank Chairman Correa for holding this
important hearing today, and I look forward to hearing the
witness testimonies.
Thank you, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement of Ranking Member Lesko follows:]
Statement of Ranking Member Debbie Lesko
April 9, 2019
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased that the subcommittee is
meeting today to receive testimony from our distinguished panel on the
President's fiscal year 2020 budget request for both the Transportation
Security Administration and the United States Coast Guard.
I am pleased that this year's $7.8 billion budget request for TSA
supports robust deployment of new checkpoint technologies like Computed
Tomography and Credential Authentication Technologies that will make
the traveling public's airport screening experience safer and more
efficient.
I am hopeful that the successful fielding of technologies like CT
will mean that someday soon, Americans will be able to leave their
liquids and laptops in their bags as they go through screening.
I am also pleased that this budget request finds efficiencies that
will save the taxpayers money, including tens of millions of dollars
saved through eliminating contract redundancies and reducing the size
of headquarters.
We know that transportation remains a persistent target for
terrorist groups, so it is critical that TSA continuously strives to be
innovative and ahead of the curve on emerging threats.
With a strong National economy leading to steady growth in
passenger volume at U.S. airports, TSA's mission is more important than
ever.
Similarly, the United States Coast Guard has broad homeland
security mission sets for migrant and drug interdiction, as well as
port security, that are supported in this year's $11.3 billion budget
request.
As the only branch of the U.S. military that operates within the
Department of Homeland Security, as well the Department of Defense, the
Coast Guard's uniqueness reflects the critical role it plays in
protecting America's maritime systems.
Recently, Congress has appropriated funding to support new vessels,
including the Polar Security Cutter and National Security Cutter
programs, that will help achieve mission readiness and provide our
servicemen and -women better tools to protect the homeland.
While much-needed attention remains focused on our Southwest
Border, it is also important to remember the critical role the U.S.
Coast Guard plays in protecting our communities by interdicting drugs
and migrants attempting to cross into the United States via our
maritime border.
I've been told that sanctuary State and city laws in areas
dependent upon a robust Coast Guard presence are inhibiting cooperation
between State and local law enforcement and the Coast Guard. This is
concerning.
Homeland Security necessitates close coordination and positive
working relationships among Federal Law Enforcement and State and local
partners.
I am worried that the resource challenges that the Coast Guard
already faces are only further amplified in situations like this, so I
look forward to hearing the Commandant discuss the importance of State
and local partnerships.
Again, I wish to thank Chairman Correa for holding this important
hearing today, and I look forward to hearing the witnesses'
testimonies. Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Correa. Thank you, Mrs. Lesko.
I would like to now recognize the Chair of Homeland
Security, Chairman Thompson, for an opening statement as well.
Welcome, sir.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much.
Good morning. I would like to thank Chairman Correa and
Ranking Member Lesko for holding today's hearing on examining
the President's fiscal year 2020 budget request for the
Transportation Security Administration and the U.S. Coast
Guard.
I would also like to thank Administrator Pekoske and
Commandant Schultz for appearing before the subcommittee today.
It is a pleasure to have two qualified, Senate-confirmed DHS
leaders here, a rarity these days given recent events. I hope
that whoever the President nominates to be the next Secretary
will be more qualified than the last Secretary and more capable
of standing up for American values and the rule of law.
Both TSA and the Coast Guard execute missions critical to
Homeland Security. Unfortunately, the President's proposal
would undercut these critical missions in order to fund a
border wall. The President plans to place the homeland at risk.
To start with the TSA, the threat environment facing the
Nation's transportation system is active and constantly
evolving. Yet the administration's budget fails to address
major staffing and morale challenges facing TSA's front-line
security work force.
TSA has consistently struggled with low morale and high
attrition across its work force, and these struggles threaten
TSA's ability to execute its mission. Earlier this year, we saw
the debilitating impact the Government shutdown had on TSA's
work force, as many transportation security officers, or TSOs,
struggled to provide for their families and pay their bills.
The strain on unpaid TSOs during the Government shutdown
magnified financial pressures already facing the TSO work
force, which is underpaid compared to other Federal workers.
TSOs in many instances had to shop at local food banks during
the shutdown.
Entry-level TSOs are paid as low as $32,600 per year, a
little more than some less-demanding jobs elsewhere in the
airport. Unlike employees at most Federal agencies, TSOs do not
receive regularly-scheduled salary increases and lack basic
work-force protection and rights.
Mr. Administrator, you have acknowledged that better pay
and increased staffing would result in lower attrition and
better mission execution, and you have the authority to grant
those pay increases if we give you the money. Some of us really
would love to give the money so our TSOs can make more money.
But when I look at the budget request for 2020, it fails to
include any money for salary increases. To make matters worse,
the President's fiscal year 2020 budget actually cuts TSA
staffing by 815 full-time equivalent positions compared to
current enacted levels. A proposal making such cuts in the face
of pressing threats against our transportation system and
steadily increases its passenger volume is a dire indictment of
President Trump's understanding of how to keep our country
secure.
Moreover, the President proposed cutting or eliminating
several critical security programs. He proposes cutting 50
canine teams which are critical to ensuring effective and
efficient passenger screening. He also proposes eliminating the
VIPR program, which is TSA's most visible and mobile resource
for surface transportation security and eliminating TSA's exit
lane staffing.
Additionally, he will cut the Law Enforcement Reimbursement
Program, which supports placing uniformed officers near
screening checkpoints in over 300 airports world-wide. The
Trump administration should be focused on bolstering Federal
support for such programs, not eliminating them.
In addition, the budget fails to propose making significant
investments to improve air cargo security, including funding a
pilot to test new cargo screening technology as required under
the TSA Modernization Act which Congress enacted last fall.
The President proposed many of these cuts in each of his
previous budgets, and Congress has repeatedly rejected those
cuts. In fact, Members of this committee worked to include in
the TSA Modernization Act language to protect many of these
programs.
The Coast Guard. The Coast Guard carries out critical
homeland security missions, including maritime law enforcement,
drug and migrant interdiction, port security, and the
protection of U.S. security and sovereignty throughout the
world. With such a vast footprint and mission, the U.S. Coast
Guard work force is under constant pressure. Yet, like the TSA
work force, the Coast Guard work force constantly delivers for
the American people.
During the recent Government shutdown, Coast Guard members
went to work with no pay, with some struggling to provide for
their families. That military service member would have to work
without pay is unconscionable.
Instead of fully supporting their efforts, the
administration proposes underfunding the Coast Guard at a time
when natural disasters, cyber attacks, and drug trafficking are
making its effort more difficult every day.
Last fiscal year, Congress made significant investments in
modernizing Coast Guard assets, including funds to make the
Coast Guard acquisition of a new Polar Security Cutter
possible. These investments, however, do not fully compensate
for years of deferred maintenance and recapitalization of the
Coast Guard fleet and shore infrastructure.
Finally, I must convey my frustration and disappointment
that the Coast Guard and the Department of Homeland Security
have stonewalled the efforts of this committee, along with the
Committee on Oversight and Reform, to conduct oversight of the
Coast Guard Academy. Last year, the DHS Inspector General
substantiated claims that the Coast Guard retaliated against a
Black lesbian officer after she reported she was subjected to
harassment and a hostile work environment due in part to her
race, gender, and sexual orientation.
Following multiple incomplete and heavily-redacted
responses from the Coast Guard to our request for documents on
these matters, Chairman Cummings and I, along with Chairman
Correa and others, wrote Secretary Nielsen demanding a full
production of documents by today. If we do not receive a
response by the close of business, we will be forced to pursue
other means to compel production.
As Chairman of this committee, I will not stand for
misconduct within any department, nor will I stand for anything
less than full transparency when this committee attempts to
carry out its oversight responsibilities.
Again, I thank the Chairman for holding today's hearing and
the witnesses for their participation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
[The statement of Chairman Thompson follows:]
Statement of Chairman Bennie G. Thompson
April 9, 2019
It is a pleasure to have two qualified, Senate-confirmed DHS
leaders here--a rarity in the Department given recent events. I hope
that whoever the President nominates to be the next Secretary will be
more qualified than the last Secretary--and more capable of standing up
for American values and the rule of law.
Both TSA and the Coast Guard execute missions critical to homeland
security. Unfortunately, the President's proposal would undercut these
critical missions in order to fund a border wall. The President's plans
place the homeland at risk.
To start with the TSA, the threat environment facing the Nation's
transportations systems is active and constantly evolving. And yet, the
administration's budget request fails to address major staffing and
morale challenges facing TSA's front-line security workforce. TSA has
consistently struggled with low morale and high attrition across its
workforce, and these struggles threaten TSA's ability to execute its
mission.
Earlier this year, we saw the debilitating impact the Government
shutdown had on the TSA workforce, as many Transportation Security
Officers, or TSOs, struggled to provide for their families and pay
their bills. The strain on unpaid TSOs during the Government shutdown
magnified financial pressures already facing the TSO workforce, which
is underpaid compared to other Federal workers. Entry-level TSOs are
paid as low as about $32,600 per year, which amounts to $15.68 per
hour--little more than some less demanding jobs elsewhere in the
airport. Unlike employees at most Federal agencies, TSOs do not receive
regularly-scheduled salary increases and lack basic workplace
protections and rights. Administrator Pekoske has acknowledged that
better pay and increased staffing would result in lower attrition and
better mission execution, and he has the authority to grant pay
increases, if funded. However, the fiscal year 2020 budget request for
TSA fails to include funding for salary increases.
To make matters worse, the President's fiscal year 2020 budget
actually cuts TSA staffing by 815 full-time equivalent positions
compared to currently-enacted levels. A proposal making such cuts in
the face of pressing threats against our transportation systems and
steady increases in passenger volume is a dire indictment of President
Trump's understanding of how to keep our country secure. Moreover, the
President proposes cutting or eliminating several critical security
programs. He proposes cutting 50 canine teams, which are critical to
ensuring effective and efficient passenger screening. He also proposes
eliminating the VIPR Program, which is TSA's most visible and mobile
resource for surface transportation security, and eliminating TSA's
exit lane staffing. Additionally, he would cut the Law Enforcement
Officer Reimbursement program, which supports placing uniformed
officers near screening checkpoints in over 300 airports Nation-wide.
The Trump administration should be focused on bolstering Federal
support for such programs, not eliminating them. In addition, the
budget fails to propose making significant investments to improve air
cargo security, including funding a pilot to test new cargo screening
technologies, as required under the TSA Modernization Act which
Congress enacted last fall. The President proposed many of these cuts
in each of his previous budget proposals, and Congress has repeatedly
rejected them. In fact, Members of this committee worked to include in
the TSA Modernization Act language to protect many of these programs.
The administration apparently did not bother to read the statute when
compiling its budget request. If enacted, I fear this proposal could
lead to chaos and significant vulnerabilities within our Nation's
transportation systems.
Equally important to the discussion of our Nation's homeland
security are efforts to secure our maritime interests. The U.S. Coast
Guard carries out critical homeland security missions including
maritime law enforcement, drug and migrant interdictions, port
security, and the protection of U.S. security and sovereignty
throughout the world. With such a vast footprint and mission, the U.S.
Coast Guard work force is under constant pressure. And yet, like the
TSA work force, the Coast Guard workforce constantly delivers for the
American people. During the recent Government shutdown, Coast Guard
Members went to work with no pay--with some struggling to provide for
their families. That military service members would have to work
without pay is unconscionable. Instead of fully supporting their
efforts, the administration proposes underfunding the Coast Guard at a
time when natural disasters, cyber attacks, and drug trafficking are
making its efforts more difficult every day. Last fiscal year, Congress
made significant investments in modernizing Coast Guard assets,
including funds to make the Coast Guard's acquisition of a new Polar
Security Cutter possible. These investments, however, do not fully
compensate for years of deferred maintenance and recapitalization of
the Coast Guard's fleet and shore infrastructure. Without increased
investments to upgrade these assets, the Coast Guard will risk
significant capability gaps.
To face these challenges, the Coast Guard must also develop
effective retention and recruitment tools to maintain a capable
workforce. The service needs become more inclusive, diverse, and
equitable to ensure it reflects the public it serves. I look forward to
hearing from the Commandant about how he plans to improve the Coast
Guard's retention and recruitment policies.
Finally, I must convey my frustration and disappointment that the
Coast Guard and the Department of Homeland Security have stonewalled
the efforts of this committee, along with the Committee on Oversight
and Reform, to conduct oversight of the Coast Guard Academy. Last year,
the DHS inspector general substantiated claims that the Coast Guard
retaliated against a Black, lesbian officer after she reported she was
subjected to harassment and a hostile work environment, due in part to
her race, gender, and sexual orientation. Following multiple incomplete
and heavily-redacted responses from the Coast Guard to our request for
documents on these matters, Chairman Cummings and I--along with
Chairman Correa and others--wrote to Secretary Nielsen demanding a full
production of documents be provided by today. If we do not receive a
response by the close of business, we will be forced to pursue other
means to compel production.
As Chairman of this committee, I will not stand for misconduct
within the Department, nor will I stand for anything less than full
transparency when this committee attempts to carry out its oversight
responsibilities.
Mr. Correa. Thank you, Chairman Thompson.
I would like to--other Members of the committee are
reminded that under the committee rules opening statements may
be submitted for the record.
Let me now welcome our panelists. The first witness is Mr.
David Pekoske, who has served as the seventh administrator of
the TSA since August 2017. Before joining TSA, Administrator
Pekoske most notably served as the 26th vice commandant of the
U.S. Coast Guard.
Our second witness, we will hear from Admiral Karl Schultz,
who has served as the 26th commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard
since June 2018. Admiral Schultz has also served previously as
director of operations for United States Southern Command where
he directed joint military operations in the Caribbean and
Central and South America.
Without objection, the witnesses' full statements will be
inserted into the record.
I now ask each witness to summarize their statements for 5
minutes, beginning with Administrator Pekoske.
Welcome, sir.
STATEMENT OF DAVID P. PEKOSKE, ADMINISTRATOR, TRANSPORTATION
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Pekoske. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Lesko, and Chairman Thompson,
and distinguished Members of this committee, it is a pleasure
to appear before you today. It is a pleasure to share the
witness table with my colleague from the U.S. Coast Guard. I
think this is the first time that we have seen TSA and the
Coast Guard together at a hearing. I would just commend the
Chairman for putting together such a great portfolio of
agencies in this subcommittee.
I value your oversight and support and thank you for your
critical contribution to our mission success. Thank you as well
for your support of the TSA Modernization Act, our first
reauthorization since TSA was established.
This reauthorization not only emphasizes TSA's passenger
aviation security mission, but provides support and direction
that I believe will lead to increased cargo and surface
transportation security. We have already made substantial
progress in carrying out the more than 175 requirements of the
Act.
It is an honor and privilege to lead the men and women of
TSA. They embody our core values of integrity, respect, and
commitment. It was that commitment that was so plainly evident
during the recent 35-day lapse in appropriations. We appreciate
the flexibility that having a 2-year appropriation for
operations and support provides, which allowed us to use
available fiscal 2018 funds to mitigate the adverse impact on
our employees.
I am immensely proud of TSA's team of professionals who
include screeners, explosives experts, and canine handlers,
intelligence and vetting personnel, inspectors and
investigators, Federal air marshals, providers of critical
support services, and a highly-skilled headquarter staff. It is
our mission to ensure our transportation systems used by
hundreds of millions of people per year and a lifeblood of our
economy remain secure.
We are hard at work, with your help, to provide better
security faster. This includes the computed tomography X-ray
technology you championed and Congress funded in fiscal 2018
and 2019 for carry-on bags at our screening checkpoints, and
its continuation in fiscal 2020; the credential authentication
technology you have similarly sponsored to strengthen our
performance at the first position in our screening process; the
increase in numbers of screeners to reflect the strong and
sustained growth in passenger air travel; and increases in our
canine capability for both passenger and air cargo screening.
The fiscal 2020 request seeks $7.2 billion partially offset
by $3.4 billion from the aviation passenger security fee. It
has two overarching priorities. The first is continued
investment in checkpoint technology. In particular, the CT
technology and the credential authentication technology. I will
talk about each for just a moment.
For computer tomography, or CT, 12 days ago, we awarded our
first major contract for 300 X-ray systems. Your demonstration
of support for this acquisition was key to our success in
obtaining a price that was substantially less than our budget
estimates, allowing us to purchase 50 percent more than we
thought possible. This will more quickly improve security
effectiveness. Not only will this technology provide vastly
superior security, it will also be more convenient for
passengers, eventually eliminating the requirement for most
passengers to take anything out of their carry-on bags.
The fiscal 2020 budget requests $220 million for
approximately 320 more of these X-ray machines and associated
baggage handling systems. For the credential authentication
technology, the budget continues large-scale investment in this
technology deploying approximately 500 additional machines,
which improve identity and travel verification, improve risk
management, and also result in more convenience for passengers
who will no longer need to present boarding passes in most
situations.
The second key priority for the fiscal 2020 budget is
rightsizing our work force. Commercial air travel continues to
grow at approximately 5 percent per year. This requires an
increase in the size of our screening work force as compared to
the President's fiscal 2019 request and the staff who support
them. This budget seeks over 1,000 additional screener
positions from the President's fiscal year 2019 request that
will allow us to maintain our screening and throughput
standards.
Additionally, we have been hard at work in raising the
global bar of aviation security. This effort is focused on the
280-plus last-point-of-departure airports around the world. An
increase in our international footprint is needed and is
requested in this budget.
Finally, to respond to a changing threat, we revised our
concept of operations for the Federal Air Marshal Service that
allows us to make a modest downward adjustment to the size of
this very important component of the TSA, while enhancing
operational effectiveness. I would also note that we have
identified efficiencies in certain aspects of our operations
that results in approximately $160 million of program
reductions to partially offset the growth we are requesting.
In closing, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss TSA's
resource needs at today's hearing. I hope you and your staffs
have found us very responsive to your requests for information.
I am committed to being as open and transparent as possible,
and I am always available to discuss any of TSA's operations.
I look forward to responding to your questions this
morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pekoske follows:]
Prepared Statement of David P. Pekoske
April 9, 2019
Good morning Chairman Correa, Ranking Member Lesko, and
distinguished Members of the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to
testify on the President's fiscal year 2020 budget, which includes a
$7.79 billion request for the Transportation Security Administration
(TSA). I am honored to be here and welcome the opportunity to update
the subcommittee on the progress the agency has made during fiscal year
2018 and thus far this year. My testimony will highlight the
accomplishments of our exceptional workforce and explain how we have
improved our mission execution.
The U.S. transportation system accommodates approximately 965
million domestic and international aviation passengers annually--this
equates to the screening of 2.2 million passengers, 1.4 million check
bags, and 5.1 million carry-on bags each day; over 5.3 billion
passengers traveling on transit and over-the-road buses each year; more
than 10.1 billion passenger trips on mass transit per year; and nearly
900,000 chemical shipments on trucks every day. Beyond those usage
numbers associated with a relatively open network of transportation
modes, the physical scope of the system encompasses approximately
126,000 miles of railroad tracks; 4.2 million miles of highway; 615,000
highway bridges; 473 road tunnels; and nearly 2.5 million miles of
pipeline.
Aviation and transportation hubs remain highly-valued targets for
terrorists, and terrorist modes and methods of attack are more
decentralized and opportunistic than ever before. Every day, TSA is
challenged by a persistent, pervasive, and constantly-evolving threat
environment, both in the physical and cyber realms.
Last year, when I testified about TSA's fiscal year 2019 budget
request, I advised this subcommittee that we face ambitious adversaries
on a daily basis who watch us, study our vulnerabilities, and work
diligently to develop new attack strategies to replace those that have
failed. To stay ahead of these adversaries, we have to innovate, deploy
new solutions rapidly and effectively, and make the most of our
resources--goals that are reflected in TSA's 3 strategic priorities:
Improving Security and Safeguarding the Transportation System;
Accelerating Action; and Committing to Our People. In short, we must
strive to deliver Better Security Faster.
TSA's workforce has made significant progress implementing those
priorities. In fiscal year 2018, we----
Screened more than 804 million aviation passengers,
representing a 5 percent checkpoint volume increase from fiscal
year 2017;
Established and rapidly implemented a Computed Tomography
(CT) carry-on baggage screening program through procurement of
49 CT units and deployment of 30 of them to airports and
laboratories;
Expanded the training of explosives detection canine teams
in support of maintaining 1,047 TSA Passenger Screening Canine
and Law Enforcement Officer teams; and
Conducted 1,967 air carrier inspections at foreign airports,
145 foreign airport assessments, 62 pipeline critical facility
security reviews, 92 assessments of mass transit operator
security enhancements, and 124 assessments of security
enhancements by motor carriers.
Additionally, TSA's workforce consistently demonstrated
extraordinary diligence and commitment to duty throughout fiscal year
2018 and continues to do so today. Of particular note, Transportation
Security Officers (TSOs), vetting personnel, Transportation Security
Inspectors, canine handlers, and Federal Air Marshals worked for 35
days under extraordinarily challenging circumstances during the lapse
in appropriations. Many of those individuals, and in particular our
TSOs who are in junior pay bands, continued to report to work despite
suffering financial hardships. TSA leveraged the flexibility provided
by our appropriations to use prior year funding to mitigate the adverse
financial impact on our workforce. Moving forward, I continue to look
at various options under the broad scope of TSA's authorities to
demonstrate our commitment to the workforce, reward high performers,
reduce turnover, and improve employee morale.
Another important element of TSA's ability to deliver Better
Security Faster relies upon our legal authority to execute our mission.
To that end, I want to thank Congress for the passage and ultimate
enactment last October of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, which
includes the TSA Modernization Act.
The TSA Modernization Act represents the agency's first
reauthorization since its inception in 2001. Among many things, the TSA
Modernization Act authorizes appropriations for fiscal year 2019, 2020,
and 2021, modernizes TSA's structure and operations, and expands the
agency's ability to innovate, engage domestic and international
stakeholders, and execute our critical mission to protect passengers
and cargo traveling across all modes of transportation. TSA is grateful
for these authorities and, has already implemented more than 27 percent
of the TSA Modernization Act requirements, including: Standing up a new
Air Cargo Division, soliciting members for TSA's new Surface
Transportation Security Advisory Committee, establishing and conducting
the first meeting of a working group to expand the domestic explosives
detection canine breeding program, and working with American Federation
of Government Employee representatives to recommend reforms to TSA's
personnel management system.
In addition to directing an agency-wide efficiency review, we
believe the TSA Modernization Act mandate for TSA to formally apply
risk-based budgeting to surface transportation and to develop and
submit a Capital Investment Plan (CIP) will better position us to
strategically plan and apply our resources more effectively. We
anticipate the CIP will be submitted next month and the surface
transportation security assessment, which is a precursor for associated
risk-based budget and resource allocation efforts, will be completed by
its October 2019 deadline. These documents will be used in the
development of future budget requests.
As part of the budget development process, we identified cost
savings and efficiencies in order to pursue top funding priorities in
fiscal year 2020. These include reduction to the Federal Air Marshal
Service based on our new Concept of Operations; contract and travel
costs savings of $40.2 million; and anticipated staff attrition of 11.5
percent resulting from the consolidation of TSA buildings into our new
headquarters. In total, TSA reductions include 166 positions from
headquarters and $181.5 million in expenditures that will be redirected
to other higher-priority items, including support of the front-line
workforce.
Fully funding TSA's fiscal year 2020 budget request will enable the
agency to build upon the progress we have made to improve front-line
operations, accelerate the deployment of new technologies, and gain
efficiencies through organizational restructuring and optimizing the
use of limited resources. For instance, this budget request continues
on-going capital investment efforts to purchase and deploy new
technologies.
In fiscal year 2020, TSA will buy 320 CT units using requested
resource funding and prior year resources available in the Aviation
Security Capital Fund. Building upon the fiscal year 2018 efforts noted
earlier, and the anticipated procurement of approximately 202
additional CT units in fiscal year 2019, funding the fiscal year 2020
request will enable us to continue to accelerate the deployment of CT
technology to the field to equip our workforce and more effectively
enable mission execution. CT systems provide TSOs with a 3-dimensional
view of baggage, the ability to remove unwanted clutter, and a greater
capacity to detect explosives and prohibited items. We are also
requesting a $12.6 million increase to further develop CT detection
technology to identify a broader range of home-made explosives, reduce
false alarms, enable detection of greatly-reduced threat mass, and
potentially provide the ability for passengers to leave liquids and
laptops in their carry-on bags.
In addition, TSA will continue purchasing 294 Credentialing
Authentication Technology (CAT) units using $14.8 million from base
resources. The on-going purchases of CAT units will improve the
detection of fraudulent documents and allow us to screen passengers
more effectively on a risk basis.
This budget also requests an additional $58.6 million, including
associated costs, for additional TSOs (1,028 positions/700 FTE) to
bolster our screening workforce. As passenger enplanements increase, so
does TSA's operational workload. We constantly explore ways to improve
screening efficiencies while maintaining or improving security
effectiveness and consider various factors including space constraints,
passenger/baggage screening demand, equipment, and risks at airports to
right-size the workforce. For fiscal year 2020, this investment in TSO
staffing is necessary for us to continue to meet passenger
expectations, maintain acceptable wait times, and avoid crowding at the
checkpoints, which is itself a security concern. The fiscal year 2020
budget request also includes $8.8 million to implement improved
training requirements for the agency's TSO Career Progression Plan. We
expect this investment in the professional growth of our workforce to
enhance screener proficiency, performance, and morale.
Recognizing that aviation transportation security requires global
cooperation, the budget requests $10.2 million for increased
international outreach. This reflects TSA's commitment to raising the
global transportation security baseline by increasing our international
footprint in Asia, the Middle East, and at CBP preclearance locations.
This approach is designed to deter, detect, and deny potential
adversaries access or the ability to insert a threat into the global
transportation system.
Finally, in conjunction with the fiscal year 2020 budget request,
the administration proposes raising the Aviation Passenger Security
Fee, also known as the September 11 Security Fee, in order to fully
cover the costs of aviation security by fiscal year 2028. The fee was
created to cover the costs of aviation security, but currently it
covers only 40 percent. This proposal would increase the fee by $1,
from $5.60 to $6.60 per one-way trip, in fiscal year 2020 and then from
$6.60 to $8.25 in fiscal year 2021. This measure would generate $599
million in new revenue in fiscal year 2020 and close to $23 billion
over the next 10 years.
Last year, I announced a one-word revision to TSA's motto--changing
``Not on My Watch'' to ``Not on Our Watch.'' This simple but
significant adjustment reflects the fact that securing our
transportation systems is a communal effort and that our greatest
assets are--and will always be--our people, our partners, and the
traveling public.
TSA's fiscal year 2020 budget request is consistent with that
approach. To achieve the priorities reflected within it, TSA will
engage industry and our stakeholders to partner with us to develop and
deploy new technology. We will also invest resources in our employees,
who reflect TSA's core values of integrity, respect, and commitment,
and ask them to serve as leaders regardless of their titles or level in
the agency, and as ambassadors for TSA. We will continue to encourage
the public to be part of the solution. Finally, through constructive
oversight and dialog, we seek to partner with Congress as we work to
provide Better Security Faster.
Chairman Correa, Ranking Member Lesko, and Members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you
today. I look forward to your questions.
Mr. Correa. Thank you for your testimony.
I now recognize Admiral Schultz to summarize his statement
for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL KARL L. SCHULTZ, COMMANDANT, U.S. COAST
GUARD
Admiral Schultz. Good morning, Chairman Correa, Ranking
Member Lesko, Members of this committee. I appreciate the
opportunity to testify. I echo the administrator's remarks
about testifying alongside a key DHS partner agency.
First, on behalf of the men and women of the United States
Coast Guard, please accept my profound thanks for your
unwavering support, including the recently-enacted fiscal 2019
appropriation as well as the 2018 hurricane supplemental
funding directed to the Coast Guard. These were meaningful
steps toward delivering the ready, relevant, and responsive
Coast Guard the American public expects and deserves.
Yet our work is not done. If you take just one thing from
my testimony this morning, I ask that you remember this:
Readiness. We must begin with ready and being ready. Ready to
push our maritime border 1,500 miles away from our shores.
Ready to preserve the $5.4 trillion in economic activity that
flows across the MARAD Marine Transportation System on an
annual basis. Ready to support combatant commander needs around
the globe. Ready for the next hurricane season, which is just
around the corner. Ready to put our cyber authorities to use as
we adapt to 21st-Century threats.
Without question, building and sustaining readiness is my
No. 1 priority. We are at a critical junction, a tipping point
of sorts. After almost a decade of near flat-line operations in
support funding, Coast Guard readiness is eroding, just like
the other armed services. Yet, unlike the Department of
Defense, the Coast Guard funding is categorized as nondefense
discretionary, which mean we were excluded from the focused
efforts to rebuild the military, and continue to find ourselves
on the outside looking in when it comes to material operations
and support plus-ups.
In 2017, the Department of Defense received a 12 percent
boost in operations, while Coast Guard funding increased only 4
percent. Yet the Coast Guard's military contributions are
immutable. Every year we proudly expend over $1 billion on
defense-related activities in direct support of the combatant
commanders. But the $340 million of defense readiness monies
that we received has not changed in more than 18 years.
As an example of our growing defense portfolio, the
National Security Cutter Bertholf is supporting the Indo-PACOM,
Pacific commander, in the South China Sea, enforcing U.N.
sanctions against North Korea and protecting and advancing U.S.
interests across the Western Pacific.
Though we strive for relentless resilience to execute
Homeland's security and defense operations, our purchasing
power has, in fact, declined. If we continue to neglect our
growing backlog of deferred repairs and our capital assets,
including shore infrastructure, we will lose ground in the
fight to defend our homeland from evolving threats and
challenges across the Nation.
Despite these challenges, I am, in fact, extremely proud of
the Coast Guard's contributions. In 2018, as part of DHS's
layered security strategy and in support of Joint Interagency
Task Force South, our surface and aviation assets interdicted
209 metric tons. That is more than 460,000 pounds of cocaine,
more than all other Federal agencies combined, and apprehended
more than 600 smugglers.
Disrupting transnational criminal organizations at sea,
where they are most vulnerable, helps reduce the push factors
that are responsible for driving human migration to our
southwest land border.
National Security Cutter Waesche, which just completed a
patrol in the Eastern Pacific and returned, offloaded 7 metric
tons of cocaine in San Diego just last week. Our National
Security Cutters have exceeded performing expectations by every
metric. Now we must focus on transition from outdated and
costly medium-enduring cutters to our planned fleet of 25
highly-capable offshore patrol cutters, which will be the
backbone of the Coast Guard's offshore presence for decades to
come.
In the polar regions, your Coast Guard is the sole surface
presence to protect our rights, protect our sovereignty. As
access to the region expands and interest from China and Russia
grows, it is in our National interest to be there to enhance
maritime domain awareness and build governance in this
economically and geostrategically competitive area.
That is why the Coast Guard is poised to release a new
arctic strategy outlook, a refresh to our 2013 strategy later
this month. In the high latitudes, presence equals influence.
Two weeks ago, our sole operation--well, actually 4 weeks ago,
our sole operational icebreaker, the 43-year-old Polar Star,
returned from 105-day patrol to the Antarctic region to conduct
the annual McMurdo Station breakout. That mission enables
resupply of this critical vital National interest.
These missions take a toll, and Polar Star's crew work
miracles keeping their ship mission viable. They battle the
shipboard fire, numerous electrical outages, and combated an
engine room flooding situation. Just off the ice edge, we put--
embark Coast Guard and Navy divers into the icy Antarctic
waters to repair a shaft seal leak.
I am proud of their efforts, but I remain concerned we are
only one major casualty away from being a Nation without any
heavy icebreaking capability. New icebreakers will not come
fast enough. Thank you for the $657 million provided in the
fiscal year 2019 appropriation toward that end.
Finally, I appreciate the administration's support for a
number of initiatives that invest in our greatest strength: Our
people. While modest, they represent tangible investments
toward a mission-ready total work force. For instance, critical
investments in our marine inspections work force and to our
cybersecurity operations build the capabilities that facilitate
that $5.4 trillion of annual economic activity on our Nation's
waterways and protect critical infrastructure.
Last, a dollar invested in the Coast Guard is a dollar well
spent. With your continued support, the Coast Guard will live
up to our motto: Always ready, semper paratus.
Thank you, Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of the
committee. I welcome your questions.
[The prepared statement of Admiral Schultz follows:]
Prepared Statement of Karl L. Schultz
April 9, 2019
introduction
Chairman Correa and distinguished Members of the committee, I
appreciate the opportunity to testify today. Thank you for your
enduring support of the United States Coast Guard, particularly the
significant investments provided in the Fiscal Year 2019 Consolidated
Appropriations Act.
Your Coast Guard is on the front lines of our Nation's effort to
protect the American people, our homeland, and our way of life. As
threats and challenges to our National security and global influence
grow more complex, the need for a Ready, Relevant, and Responsive Coast
Guard has never been greater.
Appropriately positioned within the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), the Coast Guard is a Federal law enforcement agency, a
regulatory body, a first responder, a member of the U.S. intelligence
community, and a military service and a branch of the Armed Forces of
the United States at all times\1\--the Coast Guard offers specialized
and unique capabilities across the full spectrum of maritime
activities, from security cooperation up to armed conflict.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 14 U.S.C. 1; 10 U.S.C. 101.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Coast Guard has matured and evolved over the course of our 228-
year history, adapting our people, assets, and capabilities in response
to emerging National demands and international challenges. We are
locally-based, Nationally responsive, and globally impactful.
To outline my vision for the Service, I recently released the U.S.
Coast Guard Strategic Plan 2018-2022. To that end, my highest priority
is to ``Maximize Readiness Today and Tomorrow,'' and readiness starts
with our people, who are our greatest strength. In the competitive
marketplace the Armed Forces find ourselves, now is a critical time to
invest in our mission-ready total workforce.
My second top priority is continuing to ``Address the Nation's
Complex Maritime Challenges'' through international and domestic
leadership in the maritime domain. A unique instrument of National
power, the Coast Guard offers the ability to secure the maritime
border, combat Transnational Criminal Organizations (TCOs), and
facilitate $4.6 trillion of annual economic activity on our Nation's
waterways.
Finally, in a competitive budget environment, your Coast Guard is
acutely focused on my third priority, ``Delivering Mission Excellence
Anytime, Anywhere,'' by continuously challenging ourselves to innovate
and drive increased efficiency for better organizational performance in
response to both man-made crises and natural disasters.
strategic effects
The Coast Guard plays a critical role in a comprehensive approach
to securing our borders--from disrupting drug trafficking and illegal
immigration in the southern transit zones, to projecting sovereignty
across the globe. Our Nation's maritime borders are vast, and include
one of the largest systems of ports, waterways, and critical maritime
infrastructure in the world, including 95,000 miles of coastline.
As part of the DHS layered security strategy, the Coast Guard
pushes out our Nation's border, and serves as the ``offense'' in a
comprehensive approach to layered border security strategy. Through the
interdiction of illicit drugs and the detention of suspected drug
smugglers, the Coast Guard disrupts TCO networks at sea, over a
thousand miles from our shore, where they are most vulnerable. Coast
Guard maritime interdictions weaken the TCOs who destabilize our
immediate neighbor Mexico, the Central American land corridor, and
South American countries. Our interdiction efforts minimize corruption
and create space for effective governance to exist. Coast Guard
interdiction efforts reduce the ``push factors'' that are responsible
for driving migration to our Southwest land border.
Working with interagency partners, the Coast Guard seized 209
metric tons of cocaine and detained over 600 suspected smugglers in
fiscal year 2018, which is more than all other Federal agencies
combined. Highlighting the capabilities of one of our modern assets, in
November 2018, the National Security Cutter (NSC) CGC JAMES, in support
of Joint Interagency Task Force South (JIATF-S), seized nearly 9 tons
of cocaine and detained over 40 suspected drug smugglers from various
drug conveyances, including low-profile go-fast vessels and fishing
vessels. In addition to stopping these drugs from getting to our
streets, the information we gather and share with our partners in the
intelligence community facilitates deeper understanding of TCOs and
ultimately helps our unified efforts to dismantle them.
As an important part of the modern military's Joint Force,\2\ we
currently have forces assigned to each of the 6 geographic Combatant
Commanders (COCOMs), as well as Cyber Command, Transportation Command,
and Special Operations Command. The Coast Guard deploys world-wide to
execute our statutory Defense Operations mission in support of National
security priorities. Typically, on any given day, 11 cutters, 2
maritime patrol aircraft, 5 helicopters, 2 specialized boarding teams,
and an entire Port Security Unit are supporting Department of Defense
(DoD) COCOMs on all 7 continents. In the Middle East, our squadron of 6
patrol boats continues to conduct maritime security operations on the
waters of the Arabian Gulf in close cooperation with the U.S. Navy,
promoting regional peace and stability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In addition to the Coast Guard's status as an Armed Force (10
U.S.C. 101), see also Memorandum of Agreement Between DoD and DHS on
the Use of Coast Guard Capabilities and Resources in Support of the
National Military Strategy, 02 May 2008, as amended 18 May 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Likewise, as one of the principal Federal agencies performing
Detection and Monitoring (D&M) in the southern maritime transit zone,
the Coast Guard provides more than 4,000 hours of maritime patrol
aircraft support and 2,000 major cutter days to DoD's Southern Command
(SOUTHCOM) each year.
Coast Guard authorities and capabilities bridge National security
needs between DoD war fighters abroad and DHS agencies protecting our
homeland. In addition to COCOM support, the Coast Guard partners with
Federal, State, local, territorial, Tribal, private, and international
stakeholders to address problems across an increasingly complex
maritime domain. Our leadership on global maritime governing bodies and
our collaborative approach to operationalize international agreements
drives stability, legitimacy, and order. We shape how countries conduct
maritime law enforcement and establish governance.
Looking forward, the performance capabilities and expected capacity
of our future Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC) fleet will provide the tools
to more effectively enforce Federal laws, secure our maritime borders,
disrupt TCOs, and respond to 21st Century threats. Continued progress
on this acquisition is vital to recapitalizing our aging fleet of
Medium Endurance Cutters (MECs), some of which will be over 55 years
old when the first OPC is delivered in 2021. In concert with the
extended range and capability of the NSC and the enhanced coastal
patrol capability of the Fast Response Cutter (FRC), our planned
program of record for 25 OPCs will be the backbone of the Coast Guard's
strategy to project and maintain off-shore presence.
In the Arctic region, the Coast Guard remains steadfastly committed
to our role as the lead Federal agency for homeland security, safety,
and environmental stewardship. There, we enhance maritime domain
awareness, facilitate governance, and promote partnerships to meet
security and safety needs in this geo-strategically and economically
vital area. As access to the region continues to expand, strategic
competition drives more nations to look to the Arctic for economic and
geopolitical advantages, and the Coast Guard stands ready to provide
the leadership and sustained surface presence necessary to protect our
rights and sovereignty as an Arctic Nation.
Looking to the Antarctic, the 43-year-old CGC POLAR STAR, the
Nation's only operational heavy icebreaker, just returned home after
successfully completing Operation DEEP FREEZE (DF-19), the annual
McMurdo Station breakout, though not without overcoming several high-
risk casualties to the ship's engineering systems. The ship's crew had
to battle a fire that left lasting damage to electrical systems; ship-
wide power outages occurred during ice breaking operations. And in the
same transit, divers were sent into the icy waters to investigate and
repair a propeller shaft seal leak. Events like these reinforce the
reality that we are only one major casualty away from leaving the
Nation without any heavy icebreaking capability.
With increased activity in the maritime reaches and growing
competition for resources, we cannot wait any longer for increased
access and a more persistent presence in the Polar Regions. Our
sustained presence there is imperative to ensuring our Nation's
security, asserting our sovereign rights, and protecting our long-term
economic interests.
Last year, we released a request for proposal (RFP) and later this
spring we plan to award a detail design and construction (DD&C)
contract for the construction of 3 heavy Polar Security Cutters (PSCs).
I am thankful for your support for the $675 million in the fiscal year
2019 appropriation. This funding, coupled with the $300 million in
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN) funding in fiscal year 2017 and
2018, is sufficient to fund construction of the first PSC as well as
initial long lead time material for a second PSC.
Our value to the Nation is observed on the farthest shores around
the globe as well as closer to home where we continue to be ``Always
Ready'' to answer the call for help. The 2018 hurricane season led to
yet another historic Coast Guard response effort. The Coast Guard
mobilized over 8,600 active-duty members, reservists, and civilians for
hurricane response across the United States for hurricanes Florence and
Michael in the mid-Atlantic States and Gulf Coast respectively, as well
as typhoon Mangkhut in Guam.
In support of, and in coordination with the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) and other Federal, State, local, and
territorial agencies, the Coast Guard saved nearly 1,000 lives using
helicopters and shallow water craft, provided logistical support to
first responders, and oversaw the safe and effective resumption of
commerce at over 20 impacted sea ports.
While such a level of professionalism and distinction is what the
American people have come to expect from your Coast Guard, that
response comes at a cost. We continue to do our very best to stand
ready to respond to all maritime disasters, both natural and man-made;
however, these efforts consume future readiness. Our aging assets and
infrastructure require increased maintenance and repairs, all of which
is compounded by the on-going recovery and restoration operations of
the historic hurricane season of 2017.
In 2017 alone, the Coast Guard lost the equivalent of 2 major
cutters (e.g., over 300 operational days) due to unplanned repairs.
Expanding that to the last 2 years, we have lost 3 years' worth of
major cutter patrol days. In 2017 and again in 2018, shortages in parts
and supplies cost the Coast Guard over 4,500 flight hours each year, or
the equivalent of programmed operating hours for 7 MH-65 helicopters.
Each hour lost in the transit zones keeps us further from reaching our
interdiction targets and helps the TCOs deliver their illicit cargoes.
Service readiness starts with our most valuable asset--our people.
We must continue to recruit, train, support, and retain a mission-ready
total workforce that not only positions the Service to excel across the
full spectrum of Coast Guard missions, but is representative of the
diverse Nation we serve. Our workforce end strength was reduced by over
1,250 personnel during a 3-year period from fiscal year 2012 to fiscal
year 2015. And compared to the workforce of fiscal year 2012, the Coast
Guard has nearly 1,000 fewer personnel to accomplish an ever increasing
mission set. Adequate increases to depot maintenance funding, coupled
with strategic human capital investments, are critical to addressing
these readiness challenges.
conclusion
The Coast Guard offers a capability unmatched in the Federal
Government. Whether combating TCOs to help stabilize to the Western
Hemisphere, responding to mariners in distress in the Bering Sea, or
supporting U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) on the Arabian Gulf, the
Coast Guard stands ready to execute a suite of law enforcement,
military, and regulatory authorities and capabilities to achieve
mission success anytime, anywhere. We cannot do this on the backs of
our people--now is the time to address the erosion of readiness
experienced in our Service over the past decade due to near flat-line
funding for operations and support.
While the demand for Coast Guard services has never been higher, we
must address our lost purchasing power, the growing backlogs of
deferred maintenance on our capital assets, and the degraded
habitability of our infrastructure.
Our 48,000 active-duty and reserve members, 8,500 civilians, and
over 25,000 volunteer members of the Coast Guard Auxiliary need your
support to maintain a Ready, Relevant, and Responsive Coast Guard.
With the continued support of the administration and Congress, your
Coast Guard will live up to our motto--Semper Paratus--Always Ready.
Thank you for your support of the men and women of the Coast Guard.
fiscal year 2020 budget request
The Coast Guard's fiscal year 2020 budget request is focused on
three main priorities:
1. Maximize Readiness Today and Tomorrow
2. Address the Nation's Complex Maritime Challenges
3. Deliver Mission Excellence Anytime, Anywhere.
Maximize Readiness Today and Tomorrow
The Coast Guard's top priority is Service readiness. The fiscal
year 2020 President's budget request begins to address the erosion of
readiness that resulted from years under the Budget Control Act.
Critical investments in the workforce as well as depot maintenance for
the fleet will put the Service on the path to recovery to sustain
critical front-line operations.
Additionally, investments in asset modernization sustain
recapitalization momentum while advancing other critical programs. The
fiscal year 2020 budget request supports the Service's highest priority
acquisition, the OPC, and continues recapitalization efforts for
cutters, boats, aircraft, IT systems, and infrastructure.
Address the Nation's Complex Maritime Challenges
As one of the Nation's most unique instruments of National
authority across the full spectrum of maritime operations, the Coast
Guard cooperates and builds capacity to detect, deter, and counter
maritime threats.
While nefarious activities destabilize and threaten vulnerable
regions, the Coast Guard offers capabilities, authorities, and
established partnerships that lead to a more secure maritime border.
The fiscal year 2020 budget invests in a holistic approach to combat
TCOs through targeted detection and interdiction of suspected drug
smugglers, at-sea biometrics, and increased partnerships with allied
law enforcement nations in Central and South America, to quell illegal
migration.
As the Marine Transportation System (MTS) grows increasingly
complex, the Coast Guard's marine safety workforce must adapt to
continue to facilitate commerce. The fiscal year 2020 budget increases
the marine inspection workforce while addressing key findings from the
report on the tragic sinking of the freight vessel EL FARO and the loss
of 33 crew members.
Deliver Mission Excellence Anytime, Anywhere
The Coast Guard is an agile and adaptive force whose greatest value
to the Nation is an ability to rapidly shift among its many missions to
meet National priorities during steady-state and crisis operations.
As new threats in the cyber domain emerge, the Coast Guard's cyber
workforce serves as the critical link between DoD, DHS, and the
intelligence community. The fiscal year 2020 budget increases the cyber
workforce to promote cyber risk management and protect maritime
critical infrastructure from attacks, accidents, and disasters.
The Coast Guard seeks to continually improve organizational
effectiveness and the fiscal year 2020 budget eliminates redundant and
outdated IT services to reinforce the culture of continuous innovation
and enhance information sharing across the Service.
fiscal year budget highlights
Procurement, Construction, & Improvements (PC&I)
Surface Assets.--The budget provides $792 million for the following
surface asset recapitalization and sustainment initiatives:
National Security Cutter (NSC).--Provides funding for post-
delivery activities for the seventh through eleventh NSCs, and
other program-wide activities. The acquisition of the NSC is
vital to performing DHS missions in the far offshore regions
around the world. The NSC also provides a robust command-and-
control platform for homeland security and contingency
operations.
Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC).--Provides funding for
construction of the third ship and long lead time materials
(LLTM) for the fourth and fifth OPC. The OPC will replace the
Medium Endurance Cutters, now well beyond their service lives,
which conduct multi-mission operations on the high seas and
coastal approaches.
Fast Response Cutter (FRC).--Funds procurement of two FRCs,
totaling 54 of the 58 vessels needed for the domestic program
of record. These assets provide coastal capability to conduct
search-and-rescue operations, enforce border security,
interdict drugs, uphold immigration laws, prevent terrorism,
and enhance resiliency to disasters.
Polar Security Cutter (PSC).--Provides funding to support
detail design and construction activities of the joint Coast
Guard-Navy Integrated Program Office (IPO) and program
management associated with construction of the lead PSC. PSCs
will provide the Nation with assured surface access to the
Polar Regions for decades to come.
Polar Sustainment.--Supports a multi-year Service Life
Extension Project (SLEP) for CGC POLAR STAR, including program
management activities, materials purchases, and production
work.
Waterways Commerce Cutter (WCC).--Provides funding for
acquisition planning activities, including continued evaluation
of options to replace the capabilities provided by the current
fleet of inland tenders and barges commissioned between 1944
and 1990. These multi-mission platforms are integral to the
protection of maritime commerce on the inland rivers.
Cutter Boats.--Continues funding for the production of
multi-mission cutter boats fielded on the Coast Guard's major
cutter fleet, including the NSC, OPC, and PSC.
In-Service Vessel Sustainment.--Continues funding for
sustainment projects on 270-foot Medium Endurance Cutters, 225-
foot sea-going Buoy Tenders, and 47-foot Motor Lifeboats.
Survey and Design.--Continues funding for multi-year
engineering and design work for multiple cutter classes in
support of future sustainment projects. Funds are included to
plan Mid-Life Maintenance Availabilities (MMA) on the CGC
HEALY, CGC MACKINAW, and the fleet of 175-foot Coastal Buoy
Tenders.
Air Assets.--The budget provides $200 million for the following air
asset recapitalization or enhancement initiatives:
HC-144.--Continues Minotaur mission system retrofits and
provides high-definition electro-optical infrared cameras to
meet DHS Joint Operational Requirements.
HC-27.--Continues missionization activities, including
funding for spare parts, logistics, training, and mission
system development.
HH-65.--Continues modernization and sustainment of the Coast
Guard's fleet of H-65 short-range recovery helicopters,
converting them to MH-65E variants. The modernization effort
includes reliability and sustainability improvements, where
obsolete components are replaced with modernized sub-systems,
including an integrated cockpit and sensor suite. Funding is
also included to extend aircraft service life for an additional
10,000 hours.
MH-60.--Includes funding to support a service life extension
for the fleet of medium-range recovery helicopters to better
align recapitalization with DOD's future vertical lift program.
sUAS.--Continues program funding to deploy sUAS on-board the
NSC allowing increased interdiction through greater
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR).
Shore Units and Aids to Navigation (ATON).--The budget provides
$174 million to recapitalize shore infrastructure that supports Coast
Guard assets and personnel, as well as construction and improvements to
ensure public safety on waterways. Examples include:
Replacement of covered boat moorings at Station Siuslaw
River, Oregon; recapitalization of failed aviation pavement at
Sector Columbia River, Oregon; construction in Boston,
Massachusetts to support arriving FRCs; and construction in
Sitka, Alaska to support arriving FRCs.
Other (Asset Recapitalization).--The budget provides $69 million
for other initiatives funded under the Procurement, Construction, and
Improvements account, including the following equipment and services:
Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence,
Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C4ISR).--Provides design,
development, upgrades, and assistance on C4ISR hardware and
software for new and in-service assets.
Program Oversight and Management.--Funds administrative and
technical support for acquisition programs and personnel.
CG-Logistics Information Management System.--Continues
development and deployment of this system to Coast Guard
operational assets.
Cyber and Enterprise Mission Platform.--Provides funding for
emerging Command and Control, Communications, Computer, Cyber,
and Intelligence (C5I) capabilities.
Other Equipment and Systems.--Funds end-use items costing
more than $250,000 used to support Coast Guard missions,
including equipment to support operation and maintenance of
vessels, aircraft, and infrastructure.
Operations and Support (O&S)
Operation and Maintenance of New Assets.--The budget provides $59
million and 297 FTE to operate and maintain shore facilities and
sustain new cutters, boats, aircraft, and associated C4ISR subsystems
delivered through acquisition efforts:
Shore Facilities.--Funds operation and maintenance of shore
facility projects scheduled for completion prior to fiscal year
2020. Projects include: Coast Guard Yard dry dock facilities in
Baltimore, Maryland; FRC Homeport Facilities in Galveston,
Texas; Electrical Utilities for Air Station Barbers Point,
Hawaii; and Housing for Station Jonesport, Maine.
FRC.--Funds operation and maintenance and personnel for 5
FRCs and shore-side support for FRCs in Galveston, Texas; Key
West, Florida; and Apra Harbor, Guam.
NSC.--Funds crew of NSC No. 9, as well as personnel for
sensitive compartmented information facility (SCIF) crews and
analytical support, and shore-side support personnel in
Charleston, South Carolina.
OPC.--Funds a portion of the crew for OPC No. 1, as well as
shore-side personnel to develop operational doctrine for the
new class of cutter to be homeported in Los Angeles/Long Beach,
California.
HC-130J Aircraft.--Funds operations, maintenance, air crews,
and pilots for HC-130J airframe No. 12.
Pay & Allowances.--The budget provides $118 million to maintain
parity with DoD for military pay, allowances, and health care, and for
civilian benefits and retirement contributions, including a 3.1 percent
military pay raise in 2020. As a branch of the Armed Forces of the
United States, the Coast Guard is subject to the provisions of the
National Defense Authorization Act, which include pay and personnel
benefits for the military workforce.
Asset Decommissionings.--The budget saves $12 million and 119 FTE
associated with the planned decommissioning of 1 High Endurance Cutter
(WHEC) and 3 110-foot Patrol Boats (WPBs). As the Coast Guard
recapitalizes its cutter and aircraft fleets and brings new assets into
service, the older assets that are being replaced will be
decommissioned:
High Endurance Cutter (WHEC).--The budget decommissions one
WHEC. These assets are being replaced with modernized and more
capable NSCs.
110-foot Patrol Boats (WPBs).--The budget decommissions
three WPBs. These assets are being replaced with modernized and
more capable FRCs.
Operational Adjustments.--In fiscal year 2020, the Coast Guard will
make investments that begin to address the erosion of readiness of the
Service while investing in new workforce initiatives:
Aircraft Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Compliance.--
The budget provides $22 million to replace obsolete aircraft
equipment and systems necessary to comply with FAA 2020
airspace requirements.
Cyber and IT Infrastructure.--The budget provides $16
million and 38 FTE to mature the cybersecurity defense program.
The budget also provides funding for an information technology
framework and platform to establish a consolidated user
interface primarily for Command Centers.
Restoring Depot Readiness.--The budget provides $10 million
to begin to restore eroded vessel and aircraft readiness and
address critical information technology maintenance and
inventory backlogs.
Human Capital and Support Infrastructure.--The budget
provides $17 million and 22 FTE to improve enterprise-wide
support for the workforce, including the transition to
electronic health records and training and support for the
Coast Guard Reserve.
Counter Transnational Criminal Organizations (TCO).--The
budget provides $7 million and 26 FTE to expand the Coast
Guard's capacity to execute a multi-layered approach in the
Western Hemisphere maritime transit zone, dismantle TCOs, and
secure our Nation's borders from illicit smuggling of all
kinds.
Maritime Safety, Security, and Commerce.--The budget
provides $6 million and 20 FTE to strengthen the Coast Guard's
marine safety program through improved marine inspector
training, establishment of a third-party oversight and auditing
program, expansion of the marine inspector workforce, and
improved accession opportunities for marine inspectors.
Mr. Correa. I thank the witnesses for their testimony.
I will remind each Member that he or she will have 5
minutes to question the panel.
I will now recognize myself for the first set of questions.
Admiral Schultz, you went over a little bit there, over
your time, but I really wanted to hear your statement. As I
listened to both of you here speak today, Administrator
Pekoske, I was thinking to myself, you can't afford to be wrong
once. You have to be 100 percent on your job. TSA cannot afford
one error. One error means we can have air passengers face
disaster.
Admiral Schultz, let me ask you. Is the Coast Guard--is
your job limited to 12 miles off the coast of the United States
or are you world-wide in terms of your operations? Because the
more I learn about what you do, North Korea, enforcing military
operations in the area. When I was in Puerto Rico recently, I
went to visit your Coast Guard operations, and I found out your
operations go all the way to the coast of South America. So you
are really operating world-wide.
We talked about interdictions of drugs. You estimate, out
of 100 percent of those shipments coming into the United
States, you can track about 80 percent of them. Of those 80
percent of those shipments that you can actually identify, you
only have the assets to interdict about 20 percent.
So when you are looking at investments in terms of keeping
drugs away from our country, you know of those 80 percent of
those shipments, yet you can only touch 20 percent. You know
where they are coming. You know where they are going. You know
what those targets have, and yet you don't have the resources
to stop them.
So my question to both of you: What are you doing wrong?
What are you doing wrong in terms of telling Congress, telling
the administration of the good work you do? Short of losing
your jobs, what can we do to make sure people understand that
you are the place we need to invest our resources to keep our
airways safe and to keep drugs away from our country?
What else can we do? What else can you do?
Mr. Pekoske. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the question. What
I would offer is continue to do what you are already doing. You
ask a lot of very good questions both at the Member and the
staff level. We do everything we can to be as responsive and
complete in our answers as we possibly can be. I think that
dialog is very important for a mutual understanding of the
challenges we face.
Additionally, both Admiral Schultz and I know that we are
not operating in an unconstrained resource environment.
Difficult choices need to be made. They are made every year.
The budget reflects the choices that we make within the funding
envelope that we are provided. Our job is really to make the
best use of the resources that we end up in an appropriation.
The final thing I would mention is that the fiscal 2020
request reflects the President's budget for fiscal 2019,
because the full budget had not yet been passed by the time
this budget was put together. So there are some assumptions
made in the budget proposal that did not reflect the final
appropriated budget. But I would say that the top line wouldn't
move much as a result of that. But just some of the choices
perhaps that we might make within that envelope might be
slightly different.
Admiral Schultz. Chairman, I thank you for the question. I
would say the Coast Guard, as you called out, is a unique and
enduring value proposition for the Nation. We are deployed on
any given day, support. And generally, 5 of the 6 geographic
combatant commanders, whether it is drugs in the SOUTHCOM area,
we have got, you know, the Antarctic, the Arctic with polar
icebreakers. We are in the South China Sea, as you know, with a
National security cutter today. We domestically rescue more
than 20,000 people on an annual basis. We have border security
missions. We are a locally-based domestic organization with
global responsibilities, and we have unique authorities. I
would say 11 statutory missions are tough to roll up in a 3-
line elevator speech. So we are a complex organization that
brings a lot to the table.
The 2020 budget proposes some ability to bite into the
eroding readiness that we suffered in recent years. The capital
budget maintains momentum on our top priorities. That is
maintaining momentum on the polar security acquisition, on the
offshore patrol cutter acquisition. Those are our top
priorities.
We are building ships, National Security Cutter, offshore
patrol cutters, fast response cutters. We are going to award a
contract for the icebreaker here probably in the next 30 to 45
days. It is an exciting time in terms of new capital assets for
the Coast Guard with the Congress' and the administration's
support.
Where we struggled in recent years, as I called out in my
statement, is the operating budget. It has been essentially--we
have lost about 10 percent purchasing power in the last 8 to 10
years under the Budget Control Act conditions.
So that is the place, sir, we are looking to raise the
visibility. It is my job, and I will work, you know, diligently
to tell this story so people understand we are the fifth armed
service. We are an armed service first and foremost every day,
appropriately situated in the Department of Homeland Security.
But with that, sometimes the conversations that raise the bar
about the armed services, we are not in that conversation. That
is my job to make sure I communicate that narrative.
Mr. Correa. Admiral, I am glad you ended your statement in
that manner, because you are the fifth military branch, yet I
believe you are the one that doesn't get the credit. You are
fully audited, transparency, and you are the ones whose budgets
are not addressed, and yet you seem to be the ones that, again,
not only protect our shores, but have military operations
internationally.
I just believe both of you have such critical jobs to
protect our country that we need to make sure the folks that
put together these budgets and vote on these budgets understand
your missions and fund you adequately.
Again, Mr. Administrator, you have to be 100 percent. Zero
errors is what we are expecting. That is what your men and
women are delivering right now.
With that being said, I want to recognize the Ranking
Member of the subcommittee, the gentlelady from Arizona, Mrs.
Lesko, for questions.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My first question is for Administrator Pekoske. I recently
met with the Phoenix airport administrators, and they said they
have experienced a number of TSA system failures over the last
few years related to their checked baggage screening where the
inline baggage system was broken down. They said it happened as
recently as February and early March. They basically said that
there was no backup system and that they had to--you know, they
spent wasted time and that type of thing.
Do you know if the TSA is doing anything to correct those
problems?
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, ma'am. I am very aware of the problems
they have had. Essentially, what has happened is the servers
that support the--those systems have gone down, and you
mentioned most recently in February, which creates significant
issues for both passengers and certainly for TSA and for the
carriers, because when that happens, sometimes we are not able
to match a bag on a plane with a passenger and they have to
wait for it to get delivered in a follow-on flight.
One of the things that we are doing is making sure we have
adequate backup servers in that airport to support that
problem. I would note too that that is a rather unusual problem
to have. That is not something we see across the system of 440
airports. So we are on it. We are making sure that we do
everything we can to prevent that kind of disruption in the
future.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you.
Another question for you, sir. I want to give you the
opportunity to explain why the budget proposal would keep our
Nation secure. Is it enough money? I know you always want more
money, but we always have to balance it with being fiscally
responsible with taxpayer money and making sure our country is
safe. So if you could explain how this budget will keep our
country safe.
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, ma'am. The budget will primarily keep our
country safe by continuing the operational investment in TSA,
and then, additionally, providing additional funds for our
technology infusion.
What I see as I look at our screening checkpoints, in
particular, and, to an extent, our checked baggage systems is
that we need a significant technology refresh across the board.
Congress' support, the administration's request for the
computed tomography systems has been very, very significant.
We have been able to, in the course of just a year, go from
a project envisioned to a contract, which is really unheard of
in the Federal Government. That is due to two key factors. One
is the strong signal this Congress sent to everyone that this
was very important to the Congress, with the significant
funding level you provided. Then, second, to the flexibility
and the creativity of my acquisition staff, my contracting
staff, and the Department's acquisition and contracting staffs.
We moved mountains to get this acquisition in place.
The second piece would be that credential technology, which
really will reduce significantly any identity fraud, any
boarding pass fraud that might occur at the checkpoints, and
also allow us to better assign passengers to the risk security
that they need to receive.
So I am very excited about the technology investment that
is in this budget and what it signals for the future, because
this is going to be a long road of technology, not just with
the--you know, the carry-on bag X-ray systems, but with your
on-body anomaly detection systems and the identity systems. I
mean, all those together are very important for us to really up
the game in security effectiveness.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Administrator. I have like 1\1/
2\ minutes left, so I am going to ask the admiral a question.
It is basically--you know, my understanding is, you know,
the reduction in funding from last year's enacted budget
primarily had to do with that you bought these cutters last
year. Is that your understanding?
Admiral Schultz. Ranking Member, yes. [Inaudible] $675
million on top of the--you know, it was in the request. So we
are maintaining momentum. That is the glide slope we need to be
in. Clearly, you know, accelerated funding. The Congress has
been very supportive on our shipbuilding, our aviation
accounts. But this budget includes momentum moving forward and
it funds our front-line operations and it actually starts to
bite into some of the erosion of readiness we have had. So this
budget allows the Coast Guard continued front-line operations,
maintain momentum on critical programs.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you. One last question is I have been
told that some of the sanctuary State and city programs are
actually inhibiting the cooperation between local governments
and the Coast Guard. Have you heard any of that, and can you
explain it?
Admiral Schultz. So, Ranking Member Lesko, I would tell
you, the Coast Guard absolutely exists on partnerships. We are
lead Federal law enforcement agency in the maritime domain. We
work with State, local folks, whether it is a single sheriff
office with one boat, through State partnerships to a lot of
capabilities.
Generally, you know, we are funded to continue front-line
operations, work those partnerships. There have been some
examples. In Southern California, we got a couple cases. I
would say they are anomalous. They are not the day-to-day. Day-
to-day, we continue to work well. But I have talked to field
commanders in recent visits who tell me, you know, we don't
have 100 percent predictability that a local sheriff, a local
police marine unit is going to launch on a case to the degree
we had yesteryear. But I would tell you we are working across
those things. It is not something that I think is a big
inhibitor to our mission. But I have heard some of those
stories.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, sir.
I yield back.
Mr. Correa. Thank you, Mrs. Lesko.
Now I would like to recognize our colleague, Mr. Cleaver,
from the good State of Missouri, for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Cleaver. Thank you, Chairman Correa.
Admiral, thank you for being here. Actually, both of you
are welcomed here in this committee.
Admiral, to follow up on what Chairman Thompson said, do
you know of any reason why we would not be able to--why we have
not received information on a very, very clear discrimination
complaint?
Admiral Schultz. Congressman Cleaver, thanks for the
question. I would say, first off, regarding the whistleblower
complaint, we--that was a DHS report that came out in December.
With the shutdown, we lost a little time in being directed by
DHS to take action on that. We have acted on all those
directives, including taking care of the officer, involved
officer's evaluation, changing our training updates, our civil
rights manual. We got a couple final tweaks on deploying
training to managers in the field.
On the broader topic of producing documents for the
committee, we have a due date today, as the Chairman mentioned.
We are going to deliver new information on 9 inquiries and
investigations that haven't been produced before. We have over
450 pages of emails, you know, redacted for PII and attorney-
client, you know, internal deliberative-type stuff, but minimal
reactions, and then over 9,000 pages of what we call Defense
Equal Opportunity Climate Surveys. So we will meet that
submission date today, and we continue to work with the
department, Office of General Counsel, to be as responsive as
possible.
Mr. Cleaver. Thank you. I appreciate that. You know, these
kind of issues are significant to us and should be to all
Americans. Thank you very much.
Mr. Pekoske, thank you for being here. Kansas City,
Missouri, is one of only 2 cities in the United States, major
cities, where the TSA is not operated by the TSA. I am in the
process now of trying to figure--I know why it was done that
way, Kansas City and San Francisco. They were test models back
in the day. But that was what, 2002? We are 2019. Can you give
me any reason why that situation should remain as it is?
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, sir. It is really an airport decision
first. The airport needs to request to TSA, if they are
currently a TSA Federally-screened airport, if they wanted to
go to a private contract, they would request that to TSA, and
in a very short period of time, we respond to them. If we
approve that request, which we almost always do, then we look
at the members of our IDIQ, indefinite delivery/indefinite
quantity contract, and issue a task order request for
proposals. That comes back, and then we make a decision as to
how to proceed.
That program is called the Screening Partnership Program,
and it exists in about 22 airports around the country. It has
operated well, in my view. It is a TSA contract, not an airport
contract. When we do testing on those systems as compared to
the Federal systems, they test at about the same rate.
Mr. Cleaver. It seems a little weird, though; you have
people who are not really with the Federal Government wearing
the same uniforms, doing the same thing, which leads me to this
other issue. I am very much concerned about the $1.6 billion
cut, allegedly, for deficit reduction. I don't want to put you
in a bad spot--yes, I do.
Do you agree with that?
Mr. Pekoske. Sir, that was part of the Balanced Budget Act
of 2013, and it basically takes part of the aviation security
passenger fee and applies it toward deficit reduction. Then the
balance gets applied to TSA as an offsetting collection to our
budget.
Mr. Cleaver. But we are constant--I mean, the Federal
excise taxes are what, 7.5 percent? Is that about right? OK.
Then we have the passenger security fees which have gone up.
If we are going to pay that--and I think, to get security,
I am willing to pay that, and I think most Americans are. But
there are a couple things that ought to happen. One, TSA
employees ought to make more money. I mean, they are the
protection between us and the bad guys. I think the turnover
seems to be rather high. That means we are not paying
competitive salaries.
My time is running out, but I am deeply concerned about
that. Hopefully, you can make some suggestions to us about what
we need to do.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Correa. Thank you, Mr. Cleaver.
Now I would like to recognize Mr. Katko from the good State
of New York.
Mr. Katko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Admiral Schultz and Director Pekoske, it is great to see
you both. We thank you both for your long and storied careers
in public service.
Director, I just want to commend you again, and I am sure I
speak on behalf of the entire committee, how proud we are of
the TSOs who worked during the shutdown in such an admirable
fashion and kept our country safe. They are a credit to public
service for sure, and I appreciate that.
Admiral, I must say, it is going back on memory lane seeing
you here, because I think of all the interactions I had as an
organized crime prosecutor, especially when I was in Puerto
Rico, and the interactions I had with the Coast Guard were
superb. It is amazing how much drugs you keep off the streets,
and the interdictions you make really make a difference. So I
commend you for that as well.
Director Pekoske, a couple questions for you. First and
foremost, could you give us an update on where you are at with
the number of CT scanning machines or screening machines you
have been able to order?
I am concerned, like all of us are, that we should have
those machines now. At the rate we are funding them, we are not
going to have them fully funded and fully in place for 10 years
or so, and that is completely unacceptable. So if you could
give us a quick update, I would appreciate that.
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, sir. The CT program, as I mentioned, is
off to, in my view, a great start. By the end of this fiscal
year, with the fiscal 2019 contract we just awarded, which is
the first major contract, we should have 75 additional CT
machines deployed across the country. Then over the course of
fiscal 2020, we should have 225 more.
So that is--to me, that is a big first step. But we do have
a second contract coming up in fiscal 2020, and that is what
the funds are requested for in this budget. We anticipate that
contract will be at least 320 systems, perhaps more. It all
depends on the pricing that we receive.
I share your concern that we want to put this capability
out as quickly as we can. That is why I was pleased with how
this contract worked where we got, you know, 50 percent more
machines than we thought we were going to get based on the
pricing that came in from the bids.
Mr. Katko. Well, that is superb. It is great news to hear
that you are actually saving the Government money, so well
done.
But I just want to make sure I get the right amount here.
If we fulfill the 2020 budget request, how many machines will
we be able to put on-line between this year and 2020?
Mr. Pekoske. That would be about 650 total. Given the ones
we currently have installed plus the ones we are going to put
out in 2019 and then the ones in 2020, we need about 2,500 at
the end of that.
Mr. Katko. So that makes my point, I guess, is you have
done a superb job of getting as much bang for the buck as you
can. But this is not a time to be slashing TSA's budget.
It is not a time to be slashing the admiral's budget
either, because when you have aging equipment, you need them on
the front lines. I mean, for every boat that is out of
commission, that is one more drug trafficker that has got a
submarine that they are using or fast boats coming over from
Colombia to Puerto Rico or coming up the Mexican coast that we
are missing.
So, you know, these are two front-line places, the Coast
Guard and the TSA, where being penny-wise and pound-foolish is
just plain dumb. I hope that sanity prevails with the budget
requests for both of you. I do not support the cuts to either
one of you because, you know, I have been in Government since I
was 28 years old. There is a lot of fat in bureaucracy that we
can get rid of, and I don't see it in your two organizations.
So stay lean and mean; we appreciate everything you are doing.
As far as the airport infrastructure issue, have you been
encountering anything with the airports, sir, Director? When
you are putting in the CT machines, will they have
infrastructure issues that they are encountering? I know the
machines are a different size and shapes and what have you.
Mr. Pekoske. We have worked very cooperatively with the
airports. The initial ones that we deployed this year and last
for testing purposes was done with the airports helping us in
that process. Everything went, really, according to schedule in
that regard. We do have a deployment plan that we are
developing not just for the 2019, you know, the 75 this year,
225 next year, but also planning for 320 or more, and then
probably stepping it up another level to get that done quicker,
as you mentioned.
Mr. Katko. Last, it is one of my personal bugaboos being
former Chair of this committee for 4 years. Every time I walk
out on National Airport, I see 4 people standing there in the
exit lanes. Three to four guards, they are usually just
standing there, you know, because they have to make sure no one
walks in. Having the exit lane technology that was discussed,
like they have in the Syracuse airport and many airports
throughout world, I would love to see that, because then you
can redeploy those people in those--those 3 or 4 personnel to
other areas on the front lines. So I am not talking about
cutting any jobs; I am just talking about saving that.
Would that save TSA in the long run if you had exit lane
technology?
Mr. Pekoske. It certainly would. You know, it would save us
over 1,000 positions, which is not insignificant at all. I
agree with you 100 percent. This is a technology solution, not
a people solution.
Mr. Katko. All right. If I have more time, Admiral, I would
ask you questions as well. But thank you both very much.
I yield back, Chairman.
Ms. Titus [presiding]. I now recognize myself, Dina Titus,
for 5 minutes.
I would like to go back to the point made by Mr. Cleaver
about the fees. It just doesn't seem to me to make any sense
that you want to raise the fee from $5.60 for a one-way trip to
$6.60, and then take away $1.6 billion to go to the deficit. I
mean, you are asking people to pay more for their safety and
then taking their money to pay down the deficit caused by a tax
break for billionaires. I just don't really think that is fair
to the people who are flying into my district for a little
holiday. That is not my major question; that is just a point of
why I support the Chairman's move to put that funding back.
I would like to ask you both about programs that you have
with Saudi Arabia. I have been pursuing this and raised it with
both the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of
State. With TSA, there is a MOU where you arranged to train
people to be air marshals, which would allow armed Saudi agents
to be deployed on U.S.-bound flights. I know it is not fully
operational, but it is moving in that direction. I wonder if
you are satisfied that there is enough oversight and security
there, especially with a country like Saudi Arabia that we
really--I don't trust.
Then the Coast Guard also has a program where, over the
past 5 or 6 years, you have been training Saudi Arabians to
protect their maritime infrastructure. I would like to get more
information about that from the Coast Guard.
Then I would like to ask both of you if you would look at
this list of the people who were released today by the State
Department, 16 individuals who have now--aren't allowed to come
into the country because of their roles in the murder of the
journalist, and tell me if any of those people were involved in
any of the training programs that you all have done, either
with the TSA or the Coast Guard.
Admiral Schultz. Congresswoman Titus, thank you for the
question, ma'am. So, yes, in fact, we do have the Coast Guard
training program. Ten members on a team, maritime
infrastructure training group. We are working with Saudi
maritime forces looking at regional maritime security in the
region. Now, obviously, regional civil war when Yemen, Saudi,
Red Sea, Arabian Gulf, broader regional terrorist concerns
there. We are building some capability to deal with an
increasingly difficult Iran, Iranian small boats in those
regions. We have been at that for a handful of years here and
continuing with that program.
When you pull that up, we have some unique authorities. A
little bit unique from DOD and where we can go in and partner
on developments. Eventually, the Saudis will buy boats and take
over this, so it is a foreign military sales case purchase, you
know, through foreign military government. When we provide
Coast Guardsmen, salaries are funded, and we are enhancing the
regional maritime security capability, which I think, you know,
rolls up into broader National U.S. interests there, ma'am.
Ms. Titus. So the Saudis are paying for all of this?
Admiral Schultz. Foreign military sales, yes, ma'am.
Ms. Titus. How do you screen the people that come into that
program from Saudi Arabia?
Admiral Schultz. Ma'am, I would like to get back to you to
make sure I answer that correctly on the screening of that. I
owe you an answer for the record.
Ms. Titus. OK. How do you keep tabs on them after they have
gone through the program? If any of the people on this list
have been in the program, could you get back to me on that?
Admiral Schultz. We will circle back with your staff,
ma'am.
Ms. Titus. Thank you.
Could you address it from the standpoint of TSA?
Mr. Pekoske. I sure can. First off on the list, I have not
seen that list, so we will get back to you for the record on
that list. But, you know, our program goes back about 11 years
with the Saudi Arabian government working right through the
Department of State. We have established, you know, a technical
cooperative agreement. It is fully reimbursable, not unlike we
do with many other countries around the world.
What this agreement, though, does not cover is it does not
cover an agreement for Saudi air marshals to land in the United
States. That is not part of this at all. That would be a
totally separate process, and we aren't at that point.
We have done a number of assessments with the Saudis. We
did a 2-week period of training in 2017 with our Federal air
marshals. This was all part of an effort to raise the global
bar in aviation security and develop capability in other
nations, and Saudi Arabia is part of that mix.
But the final thing I would mention is that Ambassador
Designate John Abizaid, who hopefully will get confirmed by the
Senate shortly, I am sure will make a separate assessment once
he gets in country on these programs overall. But we really
take our queues from the State Department, and we certainly
fully vet all the participants in our programs.
Ms. Titus. Do you keep track of them after they have gone
through the program?
Mr. Pekoske. If they flew into the United States, you know,
any passenger that flies into the United States, we do some
vetting on those passengers. So if they flew into the United
States, yes, we would.
Ms. Titus. What about the secondary screening level where
you are training people from Saudi Arabia to be at other ports
of entry for Saudi flights where they can just stop somebody
who might be coming into the country?
Mr. Pekoske. We have a number of what we call PreClearance
airports, which means that when you go through the screening
process and the Customs process in that airport, it is as if
you went through the process in the United States so you don't
get rescreened in this country. But if you don't go through a
PreClearance airport and you come into the United States, then
you get rescreened by both Customs and TSA.
Ms. Titus. You don't have any reservations about doing
business with a country where we have just had the murder of a
journalist who was a resident of the United States?
Mr. Pekoske. Ma'am, we would evaluate that very carefully
in concert with the State Department and would rely on our
joint judgment as to what the best path forward is.
Ms. Titus. Well, would you all both get back to me with
that information I requested?
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, ma'am.
Admiral Schultz. Yes.
Ms. Titus. Thank you.
My time is up. Our Chairman is back, so I will yield over
to him. Thank you.
Mr. Correa [presiding]. I would like to recognize Mrs.
Watson Coleman from the good State of New Jersey for questions.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to
both of you for being here.
Mr. Pekoske, my question is going to deal with that CT
contract, that single contract for $96.8 million. I am glad
that we are getting them. I am glad that we are moving forward.
What I don't understand is why you decided to award a single
contract to a single vendor instead of multiple vendors. So
what would your strategy be to incorporate a more diverse
network of technology manufacturers, as the Modernization Act
states?
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, ma'am. That was a single-award contract,
the first contract of two, because the second contract will be
a contract to support the fiscal year 2020 request that is in
the President's budget. That first contract we thought it was
important to go for a single award because we really wanted to
establish the price for these systems. We had a Government cost
estimate of what we thought the price would be. If you do an
award process where there is only one winner, we find that the
participating vendors tend to sharpen the pencil a lot more on
price. That was, in fact, what we saw in this regard.
I share the concern with making sure we include small
businesses and all the innovation that small businesses bring
into our overall procurement process. As we look at the second
contract, which will be much larger, because this one was for
300 systems overall. This second contract will go over multiple
years. In response to Mr. Katko's question, you know, we are
going to have about 650 systems in place by the time these two
contracts are fully run. When the next one, the fiscal year
2020 contract goes, then you have got up to 2,500 systems in
addition to the 650.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. So will you consider a small business
set-aside in that contract going forward?
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, ma'am. We will definitely consider that--
we are going to consider all of our contract options because we
want to get the capability out as quickly as we can, but we
also want that innovation.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you. Thank you.
Admiral, in 11 days, we will hit the ninth anniversary of
the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the largest oil spill in
history. The U.S. Coast Guard is the lead Federal agency for
preparedness in response to the oil discharges and hazardous
substance releases in the coastal zone, and it lead the
response to this disaster. BP has paid about $60 billion, but
do you have any--by any chance recall about how much it
actually cost the Federal Government to respond to this
disaster?
Admiral Schultz. Congresswoman Watson Coleman, I will have
to get you that answer for the record. I don't have that
number.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you. Through the Chairman, I
appreciate that, that you will get that information to me.
The administration is seeking to vastly expand offshore
drilling but is also proposing cuts to the U.S. Coast Guard's
Marine Environmental Protection account for next year. Do you
think that is responsible?
Admiral Schultz. Congresswoman, as we look into the 2020
proposed budget, where there is actually some growth in our
marine safety program, marine investment environmental
response, we have about 20 billets, what we call marine
inspectors, that work with industry on the regulatory front. We
pride ourselves as common-sense regulators. We have some monies
in there that look at third-party oversight as we look at
increasingly complex maritime domain, the future being
autonomous vessels. You know, we have got to look at the
workload, our ability to manage that, and how we bring in third
parties from industry. So there was actually some growth. The
entire 2020 budget includes about 600 additional Coast Guard
positions, some of them will be going toward that mission set.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you, Admiral.
Mr. Pekoske, I go back to my question every time I see you.
This has to do to the TSOs and the manner in which they are
paid. Have you ever costed out the differential of putting the
salary schedules in the sort-of normal schedule that civil
servants get as opposed to the sort-of, forgive this, random
sort-of salary and increased protocols that you have? Do you
think that being part of the system system would help you with
retention?
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, ma'am. We are in the process of doing a
very careful classification study of our entire TSO work force
so we know for sure how they would class out using the general
schedule as a comparison. Some of our initial work, however,
indicated that if we were to make the entire TSA work force
part of the general schedule, it would be hundreds of millions
of dollars in additional expense per year, which creates some
challenges for us from a fiscal perspective.
I would also just very briefly highlight the fact that
under ATSA, we have a lot of authority, a lot more authority
than we would under title 5 to properly adjust pay. It is just
the ability to pay it.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Well, they still seem to be the lowest
paid on the food chain. It does seem to me that I would like to
understand at some point what you are actually finding, what
you are actually proposing, what you are actually doing,
because it is something that we have actually discussed for the
last couple of years.
Thank you. My time is up. I yield back.
Mr. Correa. Thank you, Mrs. Watson Coleman.
I will now recognize the gentleperson from Florida, Mrs.
Demings.
Mrs. Demings. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so
much to our witnesses for joining us this morning.
I appreciate my colleagues who have inquired about TSA
proposed cuts to the Law Enforcement Officer Reimbursement
Program at exit lane staffing. As a former commander of the
Orlando International Airport police division during September
11, 2001, I understand how important the partnership is between
local law enforcement and the TSA, and how it is essential to
protecting our airports from anyone who is seeking to bring
harm. Simply put, if the job is going to get done, we know that
we definitely depend on the local resources to do that.
If I missed the answer to this question, please forgive me,
since I did come in late. But, Administrator Pekoske, do you
believe that eliminating both the LEO Reimbursement Program and
the TSA's exit lane security, which shifts responsibility to
local airports and local resources, is a good idea? If so,
would you explain why, please?
Mr. Pekoske. I think the law enforcement reimbursement
program has been a very valuable program for TSA and certainly
for the airports and for those law enforcement agencies. The
reason it is reduced in the budget is simply a top line issue.
When we have a top line that doesn't have enough room for
everything that we do, we need to make some hard choices, and
that, in fact, was a hard choice.
Our airport security plans, our ASPs, require by regulatory
action that airports provide law enforcement presence at the
screening checkpoint. So it is a regulatory requirement that
that service be provided, but we do very much appreciate and
value, and I know my TSOs very much value, having that law
enforcement presence at the checkpoint. It is simply an
affordability issue.
Mrs. Demings. Do you believe, Administrator Pekoske, that--
and certainly, we know that technology has made a difference in
the way we do things, but I believe there is nothing like boots
on the ground. Do you believe that we are safer in our airports
because we have made this shift in the way we handle security
at our airports?
Mr. Pekoske. I think we are safer in our airports because
the entire community contributes to that level of safety and
security, both in the public areas of the airport, at the
screening checkpoints, and certainly in the sterile area parts.
It really is all hands on deck, as you well know, to be able to
provide for the safety and security of the hundreds of
thousands of passengers that are in airports on any given day.
You also asked about exit lane staffing, and I really think
that the solution to exit lane staffing is a technology issue.
That is an issue I think that is well-suited to small business
work and innovation, is, you know, how can we basically take
the exit lane process and turn it into a technology process and
really not require anybody to staff those positions. It is
going to take us a bit of time to get to that point. But I
would certainly rather see transportation security officers who
are highly trained in operating our equipment at the screening
checkpoints, as you know, at the screening checkpoints.
Mrs. Demings. I would assume that you are having those
deliberations with law enforcement as well as the
Transportation Security Administration as you make those
decisions. Is that correct?
Mr. Pekoske. That is correct.
Mrs. Demings. OK. All right. Shifting gears for just a
moment. Following the terrorist attacks, we know that airports
around the country purchased cutting-edge technology to quickly
and accurately screen passengers and baggage for weapons and
explosives. In Orlando, the Orlando National Airport authority
invested $34 million for its baggage screening system. For
nearly 2 decades, these airports predominantly in Florida
waited for the reimbursements that they were due.
Do you, also Administrator Pekoske, intend to distribute
the $40 million appropriated in the fiscal year 2019 using the
same pro rata formula that you used in the past?
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, ma'am. We use a very similar formula, and
MCO was on that list to receive reimbursement. So that won't
close the balance completely, but it will make substantial
progress in that regard.
Mrs. Demings. Moving forward, will TSA support annual
appropriations for EDS reimbursement until all obligations to
eligible airports are fulfilled?
Mr. Pekoske. Yes. The EDS reimbursements were added into
the budget at the Congressional level, not at the
administration level. Again, it gets to be an affordability
issue. For us, we would essentially trade off our own
technology investment or our own people investment for this EDS
investment. So I don't anticipate that that will be--it is not
in the President's fiscal 2020 request. I don't anticipate it
will be in future requests either.
Mrs. Demings. I am out of time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
yield back.
Mr. Correa. Thank you, Mrs. Demings.
I am going to open up a second round of questions, and
recognize myself first.
Admiral Schultz, earlier, one of my colleagues talked about
the whistleblower issue. My question is what specifically has
been done to discipline those employees who have bullied,
harassed, or retaliated against a whistleblower? Done anything
for discipline, training moving forward?
Admiral Schultz. Chairman, I thank you for the question. We
have actioned, I believe, every item that came out of the DHS
Inspector General's report. That report surfaced mid-December.
We had a directive task order from the Secretary after the
shutdown that was deemed as, you know, noncritical work during
the shutdown. We immediately took action. We have made whole
the officer's evaluation, the whistleblower's evaluation, which
was one of the items that was directed by the IG. We have gone
back to our civil rights manual, changed our processes, updated
the manual. We have put in place criteria where, you know, the
commander has to document their findings from any type
whistleblower bullying, hazing, harassing-type situation in the
future.
Whistleblowing obviously is inconsistent with our core
values. We stand in support of any and all whistleblowers.
The last piece of that, sir, was we are upgrading our
training. That is marching toward completion. You know, our
training is computer-based. In many cases, we have got to look
at how we deploy that to ships at sea and other things. But we
are probably three-quarters of the way on that last item. I
believe we have actioned each and every item that the DHS IG
has identified in that situation.
Mr. Correa. Admiral, just to be clear, you have disciplined
those employees that bullied and harassed?
Admiral Schultz. Sir, the discipline piece, sir, the
officer who was asserted--that was investigated in multiple
investigations. The officer will be departing the service in
September, the one that was the primary person that the
whistleblower felt aggrieved by. That person is leaving the
service.
Mr. Correa. How long was this individual in the Coast
Guard?
Admiral Schultz. Sir, I will get back for the record. It
was more than a 20-year career.
Mr. Correa. Thank you, sir.
Second question for our TSA administrator. Current
collective bargaining agreement expires later this year. I
presume you will commit to working with labor organizations
representing the work force to develop a new collective
bargaining agreement?
Mr. Pekoske. Sir, the collective bargaining agreement
expires in December, and we continue to work with the AFGE
representatives. I meet with them on a very frequent basis. We
have stood up a National advisory council that includes both
union and non-union members of our screener work force to
advise me on work force issues. I think the dialog is robust
and very fruitful in that regard.
You also see behind me some uniformed members of the TSO
screening work force who are now on my direct staff. I am the
staff of the head of operations, security operations in the
head of enterprise support in TSA, to provide that conduit and
that presence in our policy-making process. So I think there is
very good communication and very good dialog with our screener
work force.
Mr. Correa. So it sounds like you are working right now,
and you will continue to work toward a collective bargaining
agreement.
Mr. Pekoske. Sir, I have not made a decision yet on whether
or not we will continue collective bargaining past the
expiration in December 2019, but we continue to work very
closely with both the bargaining unit employees and the
nonbargaining unit employees.
Mr. Correa. Restate that. You will continue to work toward
a collective bargaining agreement?
Mr. Pekoske. No, sir. We will continue to work with them on
any workplace issues. I have not yet made a decision on the
collective bargaining agreement framework for beyond December
2019.
Mr. Correa. Let us continue to discuss this matter further
off-line. Thank you very much.
I will recognize our Ranking Member, Mrs. Lesko, for second
round of questions.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief.
I just wanted to say to the admiral, I had the pleasure of
meeting with Coast Guard Auxiliary members in my district. We
have Lake Pleasant in my district, and great people; volunteer
their time saving lives. I want to say what a valuable program
that is.
I also want to thank both the Coast Guard members and the
TSA officers and all the employees for what wonderful work that
you all do protecting our Nation.
My question is just do you have anything else you would
want to add that you haven't said yet?
Mr. Pekoske. I would just add and build on the comments you
made. I said in my opening statement that I am immensely proud
of the TSA work force, and I am. I think they are a phenomenal
group of individuals.
It is the screening work force that you see twice a week as
you travel through airports, but there is also a lot of TSA
that you don't see. There are folks that work the vetting
processes that are very important to our mission success:
Intelligence, the Federal air marshals are on flights but you
may not be aware they are on the flight you are on, and then
the inspectors in the airports that ensure that all of our
regulatory requirements are being met.
It is a fantastic team. I really appreciate your comments
and your colleagues' comments on that work force. I really
think they shone through during the shutdown. Working 35 days
without pay, that commitment that is a core value of TSA was
front and center in full display for everyone to see.
Final comment is that we do appreciate genuinely the great
support we had from passengers going through our screening
checkpoints that recognized almost to a person the work that
the TSOs were doing, and also our colleagues in the airports,
you know, airport operators, retail vendors, and the air
carriers. I mean, it was all fantastic, and we appreciate it.
Admiral Schultz. Ranking Member Lesko, thank you for your
comments about the Coast Guard Auxiliary. They will celebrate
their eightieth birthday in June, 2,500 members strong. I would
put it up against one of the top volunteer organizations in the
Nation. They just have a tremendous band of skills and do some
remarkable things, and we are very appreciative of your
acknowledgment.
To answer your question about what I would like to leave
you with, we are one of the 5 armed services. We are deployed
across the globe, geographically-based, globally deployed. You
know, we are a Federal law enforcement agency, we are a
maritime first responder. You saw the work of the men and women
in the Coast Guard in 2 recent busy hurricane seasons--actually
3; 2016, 2017, and 2018. We are a common-sense regulator.
We really enable the economic engine of the Nation, the
$5.4 trillion economic activity in our 360 seaports, the
heartland waterways. We are a member of the intelligence,
National intelligence community, and we are stewards of the
environment. I think when you roll that all together, there is
tremendous value for the Nation in this 11.5 or so billion-
dollar organization called the United States Coast Guard. We
are 56,000 people strong, about 41,500 Active-Duty, 6,200
reservists, and 8,400 civilians. We appreciate the continued
support of the U.S. Congress here on our recapitalization of
key assets, aviation surface assets, and allowing us to have
the operating fund to move forward.
That would be the one piece that I mentioned in my opening
statement, just readiness. We have not sort-of got that bump-up
of the other military services, and just would like you to take
that home as a little bit of a takeaway from my testimony
today.
Mrs. Lesko. Yes, good point. I want to embarrass Bobby back
here who is with the Coast Guard, who does an excellent job, by
the way.
Admiral Schultz. We appreciate you affording him the
opportunity to learn more how our Government works. Thank you,
ma'am.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you.
Mr. Correa. Thank you, Mrs. Lesko.
I now recognize Ms. Titus from the State of Nevada for a
second round of questions.
Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pekoske, I would like to ask you about Real ID. Real ID
was a plan that came out of 9/11. It was to go into effect
Nation-wide, it was to be in place by May 2008, but a number of
States were opposed to it. It was confusing, and it was a lot
of rulemaking problems. So here we are April 2019, and it is
until not in effect. There are about a dozen States and
territories that haven't done this. I believe you all have said
you hope to see it finally in place by October 2020.
I fly back and forth from here to Las Vegas every weekend
practically, and I see in the airport this new technology in
biometrics and people looking into these things with retinal
scans, and they speed through the line. Then when I come back
into the country, the Customs has a system where you can just
use your fingerprints.
I am wondering, aren't we just throwing money down a rat
hole trying to catch up with a 15-year-old plan, when we should
be redirecting our efforts to this new kind of technology that
provides better security?
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, ma'am. You are correct that Real ID comes
into full force in October 2020.
Ms. Titus. Do you think you are going to meet that
deadline?
Mr. Pekoske. I believe that all States will be able to meet
that deadline with maybe rare exception, but we are really
gearing our messaging as we have over the course of time to
make the public aware and certainly have worked closely with
the States at the Departmental level on Real ID. Real ID is not
just a benefit for aviation security. It is a benefit for any
time you use your driver's license as a form of identification
because it is much more secure.
You raise good points, though, with respect to biometrics.
We are working very closely with Customs and Border Protection
to put a biometric system in place at airports. We have done
some prototyping in both Atlanta and Los Angeles, wherein we do
Customs and Border Protection biometric exit and TSA identity
verification at the same stop. So what used to be two processes
is now one.
We find that, you know, certainly, biometrics are much more
convenient for passengers, but it does require the passengers
at this stage to be willing to give us their biometric. So far,
we found pretty broad acceptance to that from passengers.
Ms. Titus. Is there funding in this budget to move us in
that direction?
Mr. Pekoske. There is no funding specifically for
biometrics in this budget. But what we do use are some of the
fees that we collect for TSA PreCheck programs, because we are
going to put biometrics in place in the PreCheck lanes first.
So we use some of that, a very small portion of those fees to
advance our biometrics.
Then, you know, we are working, like I said, very closely
with Customs and Border Protection so that we don't spend money
in TSA that they have already spent in CBP and vice-versa that
we can kind of join forces, if you well, and get a single
biometrics system for the airport.
Ms. Titus. Well, it seems to be the way to go.
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Titus. Can I ask you just another quick question? We
heard that during the shutdown, the Government shutdown, that
TSA increased the number of passengers who just received
expedited screening. I am wondering if that was the case. Was
that true? If so, who directed that? Was that not a bad
political decision as opposed to a good security decision?
Mr. Pekoske. We only make good security decisions. We did
not decide, did not, to change in any way our security
standards during the shutdown. We were very front and center
with that publicly to state that you should have no concerns
because the security standards we had in place before the
shutdown were the same standards that stayed in place
throughout the shutdown. In fact, in some ways, we actually
stepped up our security with some things that we had done with
our K-9 teams. So I would say, in effect, security was stronger
through the shutdown than it was before, because we are always
making our security better.
Ms. Titus. Well, that is good. I am glad to hear that.
Then there were some problems after the shutdown for
everybody finally getting paid for the time that they were off.
Has that all been cleared up, and everybody is satisfied with
that now?
Mr. Pekoske. That has all been cleared up. It is mostly a
systems issue. We use the National Finance Center under the
Department of Agriculture, as does most of the rest of DHS, for
their pay processing. You know, there were just a lot of
transactions that were put through that pay system that the pay
system wasn't able to handle. It took us a while to manually go
through and correct those.
One of the things we found is that we didn't know there was
a problem until an employee voiced the problem, because we
didn't have the system ability to look at where some payments
would not have been made. But we worked very closely with the
National Finance Center. We are on a good path with them, but
it was a challenging process for several weeks.
Mrs. Titus. Thank you. They voiced a lot of that to me, so
I am glad to hear you got that straightened out.
Thank you very much. I yield.
Mr. Correa. Thank you, Ms. Titus.
Just another quick question. First of all, I want to thank
both of you. You are men and women that protect our country day
in and day out at the airports and around the world. You have
my full support.
Mr. Administrator, I do have one issue, and that is that I
am extremely concerned that you have not yet decided whether to
enter into a new collective bargaining agreement. I would ask
you, when will you make the decision whether you will pursue a
new collective bargaining agreement or not?
Mr. Pekoske. Sir, I will make that decision probably in the
late May, early June time frame.
Mr. Correa. Late May. Could you have us apprised, please?
This is very concerning and very critical, I believe, to your
working men and women of your Department. As we discussed
earlier, we are concerned that their--their mission is a
critical one, protecting our country. We have already
established they are essentially underpaid for the job that
they are expected to do. Given that the collective bargaining
agreement does effect them and their paycheck, this is a very
critical issue, and I would like to talk to you more off-line
and continue to address this issue, sir.
Mr. Pekoske. Would be happy to.
Mr. Correa. Any further questions from the committee?
Excuse me. Ms. Barragan, welcome.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you.
Mr. Correa. I recognize you, from California, for a set of
questions.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you.
First, let me start by thanking you both gentlemen for
being here today.
Admiral, thank you for your service. I happen to represent
the port of Los Angeles, and the work of the Coast Guard is
amazing. I think the men and the women who day in and day out
are on the front lines of making sure that the port is running
efficiently and really partnering up with everybody down there
and the work you all do on the seas is pretty great.
I had--my State of the Union guest this year was a member
of the Coast Guard, now retired. But I thought it was really
important to represent at the State of the Union.
I have a couple of questions that I want to ask you,
Admiral. Many Coast Guard families experience significant
financial difficulties, especially since many Coast Guard
members are deployed away from their families. How did the
recent Government shutdown impact the morale, recruitment, and
retention of Coast Guard service members?
Admiral Schultz. Congresswoman, thank you for the question,
and thank you for your support of the Coast Guard. You
mentioned Los Angeles, about 40 percent of the goods that we
Americans buy in the shelves of the Macy's, the Walmarts, you
name it, all comes through that port. So that is a key--the
ports of Los Angeles, that will be our key vital economic node,
and thanks for recognizing the work people do.
The shutdown was challenging for our folks across the
entire Department of Homeland Security. You know, on paper, it
was 35 days. In reality, it was about a week before when people
started recognizing they might not get paid here in late
December until everybody got back to work. There was a budget
finally reached there. I think there was some anxiety.
I think we have weathered through that. You know, we have
the highest retention of any of the 5 armed services. About 40
percent of our enlisted men and women go on to serve upwards of
a 20-year career, our officers is almost 60 percent.
What we saw was tremendous resilience by our men and women
that serve in the Coast Guard. We saw tremendous resilience in
character from their families. I think we saw an outpouring of
support across the Nation that embraced the Coast Guard and
other elements of the DHS team.
You know, folks hit me up and say, are you concerned about
the retention? We will have to watch that a little bit in the
rearview mirror as we move forward, but my sense is I think the
shutdown was hard, but the resilient men and women of the Coast
Guard--I think we are going to be fine. We are bringing more
recruits through Cape May today than ever, and I would say the
talent that is entering the gates is as good as we have ever
seen.
Ms. Barragan. Well, thank you for sharing that. I had an
opportunity to hold a roundtable with the Coast Guard, and I
just wanted to make sure you had an opportunity to share the
impact as well. Know that I am dedicated to making sure the
Coast Guard is paid and should never have to go through an
instance where they are not being paid for the work that they
do.
You know, the Coast Guard has struggled to recruit and
retain women and minorities. Out of the U.S. Coast Guard's
41,159 Active-Duty members, only 14.6 percent are women, 13.7
percent are Latino, and 5.9 percent are African American. What
strategies is the Coast Guard developing to diversify and
retain its work force? What type of resources are needed to
ensure you succeed in your recruitment and retention efforts?
Does the budget here allow for that?
Admiral Schultz. Congresswoman, thank you for the question.
Recruiting, retaining, and advancing a climate that is totally
inclusive is one of my top priorities. My top priority is
readiness, and the people are absolutely essential to that. We
are linking those people initiatives to the actual readiness
and the mission performance of the organization.
I think 14.5 percent of females across the organization of
41,500 Active-Duty members, we are obviously not getting, you
know, society writ large when half the work force is women. So
we are keenly focused on that. You know, if I look at the Coast
Guard Academy as an example, where about half our commission
officers come through the gates, 40 percent of cadet core is
women. So we are doing well there. About a third of the cadet
population, which is 1,100 cadets, is underrepresented
minorities. The classes in the subsequent years here, those
numbers go up to over 40 percent women that are graduating in
2022. The incoming class this summer is projected to have 42
percent women on the URM, underrepresented minorities. Those
numbers go from 33 to 36 percent in the outyears.
Through the gates of Cape May, where we bring our enlisted
work force, we are targeting I think it is 35 percent
underrepresented minorities--and 35 percent underrepresented
minorities, 25 percent women. So we are fully on task to have a
Coast Guard that is more representative of the Nation we serve.
Within the existing----
Ms. Barragan. Can you maybe elaborate on some of the
strategies you are doing to increase the diversification?
Admiral Schultz. Sure.
Ms. Barragan. Is there anything in particular maybe you
could share with us? The second part of the question is, is the
budget that we are looking at today, does it give you the
resources that you need to help you with recruiting and
retaining? Because if not, I want to know because I want to
make sure you all have the resources to carry out the strategy
you have to do that.
Admiral Schultz. Absolutely. I mean, toward the end, ma'am,
we just got the results with a contract we awarded to Rand for
a holistic study about women's retention. Those results came
out in late March. One of the things we established early in my
tenure here starting last June was the Personnel Readiness Task
Force. We have done a lot of studies in past years. This is a
team of 7 folks to action the results.
So we have already done some things with the initial
findings. When women step out of the workplace to have a child,
we have increased a new mother leave up to 41 days. Then
primary caregiver leave, if the mom is the primary caregiver,
they get upwards of 82 days total. The spouse secondary
caregiver can get an additional 21 days. What we have done to
take that to the next level is when you have a geographically
dispersed Coast Guard small units, for a new mom to step out,
it leaves a burden on the rest of the shipmates. There is a lot
of pressure there. We are now taking Reservists, surge people,
to those vacancies while they are gone to relieve some of those
pressures. We want our women employees to be full-time, all-in
Coasties, and the ability to be full-time moms and balance that
in the workplace.
In terms of the budget part of it, I think the monies are
there. You know, there is a recruiting element. We have to
recruit in places we haven't recruited in the past years. Back
4 or 5 years ago, we had to make some reductions, so the number
of recruiting offices, we have actually restored those offices
here with the budget. We can sustain them going forward. We may
look to take our recruiting to a couple more places. So we are
looking at innovative ways to bring talent in from parts of the
country we haven't recruited successfully in the past.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Correa. Thank you Ms. Barragan.
Let me conclude today by thanking the witnesses for your
most important testimony, and for the Members for their
insightful questions.
Members of the committee may have additional questions for
the witnesses, and we ask that you respond expeditiously in
writing to those questions.
Without objection, the committee record shall be kept open
for 10 days.
Hearing no further business before this committee, we stand
adjourned. Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 11:38 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Questions From Chairman J. Luis Correa for David P. Pekoske
Question 1. The President's fiscal year 2020 budget request
proposes a cut of 815 full-time equivalent employees from front-line
staffing, as well as 50 canine teams. If enacted, what effects would
such cuts have on TSA's operations, including security effectiveness
and checkpoint wait times?
Answer. TSA is constantly exploring ways to improve front-line
operations, accelerate the deployment of new technologies, and gain
efficiencies through organizational restructuring and optimizing the
use of limited resources.
The proposed cut to front-line Transportation Security Officers
(TSOs) from the level in fiscal year 2019 enacted appropriations is
based on the fiscal year 2020 legislative proposal to repeal the
requirement for TSOs to staff exit lanes to maintain access control, as
stipulated in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (Pub. L. 113-67).
Today, TSA staffs 257 exit lanes co-located with security checkpoints
at 115 airports. The proposal would transfer the requirement to local
airport operators and allow TSA to focus its screening workforce on
screening functions. Repealing this requirement will ensure TSO
staffing-levels adequately meet passenger expectations, maintain
acceptable wait times, and avoid crowding checkpoints.
The fiscal year 2020 budget requests an additional $58.6 million,
including associated costs, for additional Transportation Security
Officers (TSOs) (1,028 positions/700 FTE) above the fiscal year 2019
budget request (which also did not include TSOs for exit lane
staffing). Due to the delays in enacting fiscal year 2019
appropriations, the fiscal year 2020 budget request was based off the
fiscal year 2019 budget request. The budget request includes $8.8
million to implement improved training to facilitate career progression
requirements for our TSOs. Fully funding TSA's fiscal year 2020 budget
request will enable the agency to improve front-line operations.
Regarding canine teams, because the fiscal year 2020 President's
request was submitted before enactment of the fiscal year 2019
appropriations, there was no opportunity to consider annualizing the 50
additional canine teams that Congress added in the appropriations bill.
TSA will consider that status of these canine teams in fiscal year 2021
and future years.
Question 2a. No attacks on an aircraft originating in the United
States have occurred since September 11, 2001, yet attacks have
occurred in public airport areas and surface transportation systems in
Los Angeles, New Orleans, Ft. Lauderdale, and New York City--all within
just the past 6 years.
How did TSA account for trends in attacks to soft targets such as
public airport areas and surface transportation systems when developing
its fiscal year budget request?
Answer. TSA addresses the risks to public airport areas and surface
transportation systems through:
Information sharing, including Classified information,
Planning (preparing plans for countermeasures that can be
employed when the level of threat is elevated),
Training (providing training for employees to enhance their
awareness and understanding), and
Exercises (providing venues and opportunities to test plans
and operational practices in order to be better prepared).
We partner closely with stakeholders in all modes of transportation
to develop solutions to enhance security in public areas.
In mid-September 2016, TSA began hosting Public Area Security
Summits with industry, Government, academic, and international
stakeholders to devise a strategy to share information, prevent
attacks, and protect infrastructure from emerging threats to public
spaces of transportation venues. Participation of both Government and
industry executives provides a unique opportunity to leverage expertise
and resources, as well as involve everyone in future security planning
to ensure both strategic alignment and unity of effort across numerous
entities. The work of the group resulted in the publication of a Public
Area Security National Framework in May 2017, with 11 corresponding
recommendations. These recommendations have served to guide TSA's
internal resource allocation priorities to ensure this critical area is
appropriately resourced and addressed since that point.
Most recently, TSA in collaboration with DHS reconvened the working
group with industry stakeholders in March 2019 to build upon the
existing National Framework and publish best practices for protecting
public spaces. This builds upon prior work and will influence resource
allocation in this area moving forward.
The Framework recommendations included: Cultivate relationships;
develop communication strategies to enhance information exchanges;
enhance situational awareness; expand threat awareness education;
develop joint risk frameworks & enhance joint vulnerability
assessments; establish airport operations centers; conduct background
checks and threat assessments of public area workers; conduct workforce
employee training; develop, conduct, and practice exercises and
response drills; invest in innovative construction designs; and
coordinate response planning.
Question 2b. Why is TSA proposing cuts to surface transportation
security programs given increased threat levels?
Answer. The fiscal year 2020 request would reduce the Surface
budget by only 1 percent from the fiscal year 2019 request due to
expected attrition of staff during the headquarters relocation.
Additionally, within the surface transportation systems, TSA's primary
security focus is on oversight, cooperation, and regulation. The
primary responsibility for security in surface transportation lies with
the owners and operators of those systems and companies. TSA works
collaboratively with surface transportation operators, Federal, State,
and local security partners to ensure appropriate security postures are
employed--this approach is distinct from civil aviation, in which
Congress directed that TSA assume responsibility for screening all
passengers and property at airports. DHS directs funding for surface
transportation security grants for mass transit and passenger rail,
trucking, freight rail, intercity buses and certain ferry systems to
fund operational deterrence; hardening of tunnels, high-density
stations and bridges; and other security efforts.
For the grant programs, FEMA operates the administrative mechanisms
needed to implement and manage the grant program. TSA actively provides
subject-matter expertise on all matters relating to surface
transportation security and other programmatic updates, and assists by
coordinating the myriad intelligence information and risk/vulnerability
assessments resulting in ranking and rating surface transportation
assets Nation-wide against threats associated with potential terrorist
attacks and in defining the parameters for identifying, protecting,
deterring, responding to, and recovering from such incidents. TSA's
resources and personnel also directly support on-going security
programs with committed security partners who, in turn, dedicate
millions of dollars to secure critical infrastructure, provide
uniformed law enforcement and specialty security teams, and conduct
operational activities and deterrence efforts. TSA invests its
resources to help those partners identify vulnerabilities and risks in
their operations, and works with specific owners/operators to develop
and implement risk-mitigating solutions to address their specific
vulnerabilities and risks.
Question 2c. What types of initiatives would be launched to advance
public airport area and surface transportation security if proposed
cuts to TSA programs that support such security, such as the VIPR
program, were enacted?
Answer. As noted above TSA partners closely with stakeholders in
all modes of transportation to develop collaborative solutions to
enhance security in public areas. We will continue to invest resources
to help partners identify vulnerabilities and risks in their
operations, and work with specific owners/operators to develop and
implement risk-mitigating solutions to address their specific
vulnerabilities and risks. Additionally, on April 8, 2019, TSA
announced the establishment of the Surface Transportation Security
Advisory Committee (in accordance with Section 1969 of Pub. Law No.
115-254). The STSAC will be composed of voting members representing
surface transportation providers and users, and nonvoting members
representing Federal departments and agencies with surface
transportation oversight. The STSAC will report to the TSA
administrator and will provide recommendations on surface
transportation security matters, including the development, refinement,
and implementation of policies, programs, initiatives, rule makings,
and security directives.
Question 3a. TSA recently awarded a $96.8 million contract to
purchase 300 Computed Tomography (CT) systems from a single vendor.
Please define for the committee TSA's final selection criteria.
Answer. As stated in the solicitation, TSA intended to make a
single award to the offeror whose offer represented the ``Best Value''
to the Government. ``Best Value'' was defined as the offer that is most
advantageous to the Government as determined by an integrated
assessment among technical (non-price) and price factors. The
evaluation factors were as follows:
Factor 1--Production and Deployment
Factor 2--Technical Capability
Factor 3--Past Performance
Factor 4--Price
The technical factors, when combined, were significantly more
important than the price factor.
Question 3b. Since checkpoint CT technology has been deployed by
foreign partners for several years, did TSA assess performance data or
metrics provided by foreign partners to inform its award decision?
Answer. TSA conducted extensive testing on Computed Tomography (CT)
technology over the past year to evaluate performance data and metrics,
including requiring vendors to successfully pass AT-2 Tier II
certification testing and to further submit their systems for
qualification testing. In addition, TSA tested systems from each of the
CT vendors at airports around the country over the past year.
TSA's ability to use international data, metrics, and test results
is limited due to different concepts of operation, testing, rigor, and
modified equipment baselines to include software and hardware.
Additionally, TSA considers differences in safety, throughput, power
supply, and other requirements which requires TSA to test to its own
compliance standards and requirements. However, TSA continues to
collaborate with its international partners to share test data, lessons
learned, and harmonize detection standards.
Question 3c. How did TSA assess factors such as size and weight
when making its award decision to ensure as many airports as possible
will be able to support quick CT deployment? Will size or weight
considerations limit or delay CT deployment at any Category X or other
high-risk airports?
Answer. TSA assessed the size and weight of each system and whether
the system met the Government's requirements during the qualification
process. Costs for airport infrastructure upgrades are included in
TSA's budget requests for Checkpoint CTs. TSA is working closely with
the airports on the modifications.
Question 3d. What testing did TSA perform to ensure radiation from
CT systems will not pose a public safety hazard to passengers or system
operators?
Answer. TSA tested all systems as part of the qualification process
to ensure they met the radiation requirements and that radiation levels
were under the U.S. Food and Drug Administration requirement. All
systems met these radiation requirements.
Question 3e. How did TSA's consideration and analysis of various CT
systems account for varied configurations such as automated screening
lanes?
Answer. Under the Advanced Technology/Computed Tomography (AT/CT)
qualification process, TSA allowed the vendor to submit a system with
or without an auto-diverter. A full automated screening lane was not
allowed but will be a part of the future CT program. Once the vendor
submitted a system for evaluation and the configuration was locked
under the qualification process, no further configuration changes could
be made. However, fully automated screening lanes will be a part of the
future CT program solicitations.
Question 4a. The committee has expressed concern with TSA's
decision to award the entire initial CT contract to a single vendor.
How does the award to a single vendor support future competition
and innovation?
Answer. This initial Advanced Technology/Computed Tomography (AT/
CT) procurement is separate from any future CT competitions. TSA
intends to issue new solicitations for future CT procurements. TSA has
not yet determined if single or multiple awards are most appropriate
for future procurements. In addition, TSA has awarded bailment
agreements for test units to a number of vendors, purchase orders for
test units, and contracts for algorithm development and prototypes to
support future competition and innovation.
Question 4b. Did TSA assess the impact of an award to a single
vendor on the domestic security technology production base? If so, what
were the results of TSA's assessment?
Answer. While a formal assessment was not conducted, TSA notes that
the aggressive deployment schedule required by the procurement resulted
in all vendors offering at least some U.S.-based production capability.
Question 4c. Did TSA assess the impact of an award to a single
vendor on the international market? If so, what were the results of
TSA's assessment?
Answer. TSA believes that a vibrant, competitive international
market, including U.S. manufacturers, for airport security equipment is
an important aspect of moving this technology forward and successfully
achieving TSA's mission to constantly improve airport security. As
noted above, TSA's bailment agreements and purchase orders for test
units, as well as contracts for algorithm development and prototypes,
support competition and innovation both in the United States and around
the world.
Question 4d. What was TSA's rationale for not spreading program and
price escalation risk across multiple vendors?
Answer. For this initial, limited CT deployment, TSA elected to
award to a single vendor due to the expedited schedule of AT/CT and to
minimize schedule risk. Awarding to multiple vendors would take longer
to deploy and have additional risk to account for training, deployment,
and configuration across multiple vendors.
Question 4e. Will TSA consider deploying CT systems from multiple
vendors in individual airports? If not, how will TSA ensure that the
vendor deploying initial systems at an airport does not have a
guarantee for the award of all future systems at that airport? What
costs would be associated with moving CT systems from one airport to
another?
Answer. Yes, TSA will consider on a case-by-case basis whether to
deploy CT systems from multiple vendors in individual airports.
Question 4f. How did TSA assess the possibility of a protest and
resulting deployment delays when making its decision to award the
entire initial contract to a single vendor?
Answer. For this initial round of CT deployment, TSA based its
procurement decision on providing the best value to the Government, and
not on the possibility of protests or deployment delays. By conducting
its procurements with fairness and transparency, TSA minimizes the
possibility that protests will unnecessarily delay the deployment of
improvements in security technology.
Question 5a. You testified that TSA will consider using a small
business set-aside as part of its efforts to purchase additional CT
systems in fiscal year 2020.
What factors will TSA consider when deciding whether to use a small
business set-aside?
Answer. The requirements of the Federal Acquisition Regulation are
used to determine whether a procurement will be set aside for small
business. TSA will consider small business set-asides for requirements
where market research shows at least two small businesses are capable
of meeting the agency's requirements. TSA anticipates that this
consideration will be made for all requirements as they are developed
and defined, such as potential future requirements for CT systems and
potential future requirements for development efforts, such as CT
algorithm development.
As TSA analyzes its ability to field existing and improved versions
of this advance in security technology, the agency will continue to
consider how to encourage and accommodate small businesses.
Question 5b. When does TSA plan to finalize and publish the
requirements for its fiscal year solicitation?
Answer. TSA anticipates a release sometime late in fiscal year 2019
through mid-fiscal year 2020 for its next CT solicitation. The
standards and specifications needed for the next solicitation are
currently being analyzed.
Question 6a. As TSA improves screening of carry-on baggage, it will
be critical to improve screening of on-body threats as well. Currently,
TSA relies on a single supplier for Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT)
machines.
What is the status of TSA's efforts to increase competition in
passenger screening solutions and improve detection standards and
capabilities?
Answer. The DHS Transportation Security Laboratory (TSL) continues
to perform certification testing of new equipment at the higher
Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) standard. This equipment may provide
the opportunity to have 2 or more vendors capable of meeting the
current AIT standard. Testing is also in the process of determining if
this new system is able to perform at levels higher than our current
AIT-2 detection standard. By the end of the second quarter of fiscal
year 2020, TSA expects to begin qualification testing for equipment
that meets these standards.
Question 6b. When will currently-deployed AIT machines reach the
end of their life cycles, and what is TSA's plan to replace them with
upgraded technologies?
Answer. Based on useful life analysis completed last year, the life
expectancy of an AIT is at least 10 years, with the average age of
TSA's AIT machines being 5.8 years. However, the data also show that
there has been no degradation in TSA's AIT availability. As analysis of
the AITs continues, the life cycle of the technology will continue to
extend as long as availability remains constant.
In addition, TSA continues to enhance the AITs with software and
hardware upgrades, thus extending its useful life. TSA is working with
the vender to enhance detection capabilities through the use of
advanced threat detection algorithm software. The Targeted Threat
Algorithm (TTA), in combination with a series of operator tools,
provides a focused threat detection capability while improving
throughput and the passenger experience. These enhancements include:
Selectable threat detection algorithms to support risk-based
screening;
Clearly identifying to Transportation Security Officers
(TSOs) when a secondary search on a targeted area is required;
and
Allowing one TSO to continue to screen passengers while
another performs a secondary search.
Once testing is complete, these enhancements are scheduled to begin
implementation in the first quarter of fiscal year 2020.
The solution for replacement of TSA's AIT fleet is under
development. The solution discussed in the Capability Analysis Report
for Screening Traveler's/Non-Traveling Individual's Person, validated
in March 2019, include continuing algorithm development on the current
fleet of AITs as TSA pursues next generation screening technology.
Question 6c. How many AIT systems does TSA plan to procure in
fiscal year 2019 and fiscal year 2020?
Answer. TSA does not plan to procure additional AIT systems in
fiscal year 2019 and fiscal year 2020. TSA is reevaluating its needs,
and will determine by the end of fiscal year 2019 if additional units
are required. Any additional purchases would be due to checkpoint
expansions necessary to accommodate increased passenger volumes.
Question 6d. What is TSA's planned time line for completing
qualification testing of new AIT machines and approving such machines
for procurement and deployment?
Answer. TSA has begun the process of identifying manufacturers of
AIT screening equipment with the potential to meet, or exceed, the
minimum screening certification standards. Manufacturers will be
allowed to propose their equipment for testing and evaluation to meet
TSA's standards, which will be tested through the DHS TSL and the TSA
Systems Integration Facility (TSIF).
Screening equipment that pass all tests through these facilities
would meet TSA's operational, functional, and technical requirements.
By the end of the second quarter of fiscal year 2020, TSA expects to
begin qualification testing for equipment that meets these standards.
Question 6e. How will TSA ensure that future AIT machines or other
technologies used to screen passengers will be free from bias,
including bias against passengers with religious or other headwear,
passengers whose hair regularly causes false alarms, passengers with
disabilities, and transgender passengers?
Answer. TSA is working with the vendor to develop a gender-neutral
algorithm to address concerns of transgender passengers, and is in the
process of finding a solution in the checkpoint screening process for
travelers with headwear. In addition, for passengers with disabilities,
TSA is utilizing alternative screening methods and continuing to
improve AIT algorithms to accommodate these passengers. TSA hopes to
identify potential solutions by the end of the second quarter of fiscal
year 2020.
Question From Ranking Member Debbie Lesko for David P. Pekoske
Question. In the hearing testimony, the administrator articulated
that TSA was examining the challenges facing Phoenix Sky Harbor
International Airport's checked baggage screening, specific to whether
back-up servers were needed during system outages. Can TSA provide
additional information on what the agency's response to this concern
looks like, including a time line for resolution?
Answer. TSA has been working with the airport and Original
Equipment Manufacturer to address issues associated with the checked
baggage network at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport. Should the
airport experience another network failure of both the primary and
secondary servers, TSA has provided a ``cold spare'' server for each
network to expedite the recovery of screening operations. The servers
are loaded with all the necessary software to enable a quick exchange
of server equipment and resumption of operations. In addition to the
cold spares, TSA is implementing additional physical infrastructure
activities to improve network availability to be completed by the end
of May 2019.
Questions From Ranking Member Mike Rogers for David P. Pekoske
Question 1. Are airport infrastructure constraints encumbering the
deployment of new technologies and more lanes?
Answer. Airport space and infrastructure constraints can make it
difficult for TSA to deploy new equipment and add additional lanes. The
existing footprint of checkpoint areas is limited and often
construction is needed to accommodate new equipment and checkpoint
expansions.
Airports are sometimes unable to approve construction due to the
possibility of compromising the airport structure and encroaching on
airport/leased space outside the checkpoint area. Also, the lengthy
construction time and the need for rigging paths has a direct impact on
the movement of passengers through terminals and conveyance systems
which contributes to the reluctance of the airport authority to approve
the work. Additionally, the airport authorities frequently do not have
funding available to modify facilities to provide for the additional
space and expand current checkpoints. TSA continues to work with
stakeholders to overcome these challenges in order to support mission
requirements and address capacity issues.
Question 2. Would funding exit lane technology save TSA money in
the long run, rather than continuing to staff exit lanes with
screeners?
Answer. As of October 2018, at 117 airports there are 262 co-
located exit lanes staffed by 1,457 TSOs. Airports broken out by
category are: 25 CAT X; 40 CAT I; and 52 CAT II, III, and IV. Costs can
range across the airports, from $60 thousand to $100 thousand (plus
personnel, operations, and maintenance) for a closed-circuit television
(CCTV) system with simple video analytic capabilities, all the way to
millions of dollars for highly sophisticated, multi-layered custom
solutions. One CAT X custom solution cost $7 million per co-located
exit lane. Complex, multi-layered solutions also require on-going
annual maintenance and technology replacement/refresh, as well as
operators, monitoring, and response personnel.
Replacing TSO exit lane staffing with local airport personnel
augmented by CCTV is affordable for most CAT IV airports due to limited
number of flights per day. The cost benefit for CAT III, II, and
smaller CAT I could be positive depending on the technology used, once
the relatively higher initial technology costs are amortized over a
period of years.
For CAT X airports, exit lane technology solutions can be quite
costly and therefore amortization will take much longer. However,
increases in security and highly enhanced passenger flow could be a
strong factor considered in that business case. TSA anticipates that
initial capital costs to either airports or TSA for exit lane
technology at CAT X airports would be significantly greater than
continuing to fund TSO staffing. Amortization of the significant
initial capital asset costs will take place over time, but will be
tempered by the on-going operational and response costs cited above.
Question 3. The TSA Modernization Act included a number of
provisions specific to explosives detection canines. Please provide an
update on TSA's implementation of those provisions.
Answer. Modernization Act Section 1927, Subsection (a), Explosives
Canine Capacity Building--ESTABLISH WORKING GROUP--Not later than 90
days after the date of enactment of this Act, the administrator shall
establish a working group to determine ways to support decentralized,
non-Federal domestic canine breeding capacity to produce high-quality
explosives detection canines and modernize canine training standards.
Status.--TSA and DHS Science & Technology Directorate (S&T)
have co-led establishment of the working group and are
participants. The working group includes members from American
Kennel Club (AKC), academia, and industry. The group held an
in-person meeting at TSA's Canine Training Center on April 23,
2019. S&T presented and the group discussed breeding model
comparisons using a Government-funded model and a limited
Government consortium model that focused on non-Federal
entities.
Modernization Act Section 1927, Subsection (d), Explosives Canine
Capacity Building--PROPOSED STANDARDS AND RECOMMENDATIONS--Not later
than 180 days after the date the working group is established, the
working group shall submit to the administrator proposed behavioral
standards, medical standards, and technical standards for domestic
canine breeding and canine training described in that subsection; and
recommendations on how the TSA can engage stakeholders to further the
development of such domestic non-Federal canine breeding capacity and
training.
Status.--The working group met on April 23, 2019 and
reviewed a draft paper outlining options for a potential
breeding program. The working group will hold a call on May 14,
2019 to decide on a recommended path forward on a National
breeding program and finalize the date and location of the next
in-person meeting.
Modernization Act Section 1927, Explosives Canine Capacity
Building, Subsection (e),--STRATEGY--Not later than 180 days after the
date the recommendations are submitted under subsection (d), the
administrator shall develop and submit to the appropriate committees of
Congress a strategy for working with non-Federal stakeholders to
facilitate [the] expanded domestic canine breeding capacity described
in subsection (a), based on such recommendations.
Status.--Based on recommendations from the working group,
TSA will refine domestic canine breeding best practices and
create a strategy to expand breeding capacity.
Question 4a. On March 28, 2019, the TSA announced a sole source
award of $96.8 million to acquire computed tomography (CT) cabin-
baggage screening equipment. The award announcement states a potential
volume of 300 systems. As stated in a March 29, 2019 bipartisan letter
from the Chairs and Ranking Members of the Committee on Homeland
Security, the committee repeatedly urged the TSA to consider a multi-
vendor award approach. Please define for the committee the final
selection criteria.
Answer. As stated in the solicitation, TSA intended to make a
single award to the offeror whose offer represented the ``Best Value''
to the Government. ``Best Value'' was defined as the offer that is most
advantageous to the Government as determined by an integrated
assessment among technical (non-price) and price factors. The award was
not a sole-source award. Rather, it was a competitively-awarded
contract to a single offeror.
Question 4b. If all aspects of the criteria were relatively equal
among bidders, excluding price, what was TSA's rationale to not spread
program and price escalation risk across multiple vendors?
Answer. TSA awarded in accordance with the information in the
solicitation. There were 4 evaluation criteria: Three Technical Factors
and 1 Price Factor. The evaluation criteria were weighted in descending
order of importance, where Factor 1 was the most important; more
important than Factor 2, and so on. The technical evaluation factors
(Factors 1-3), were significantly more important than Factor 4, Price.
The solicitation stated that as proposals become more equal in their
non-price factors (Factors 1-3), Factor 4 ``Price'' will become more
important.
In addition, the solicitation stated that TSA intended to make a
single award to the offeror whose offer represented the ``Best Value''
to the Government. TSA elected to award to a single vendor thus
reducing the risk to security operations that could result from having
varied training, deployment, and configuration requirements across
multiple vendors.
Question 5. TSA precedent is to single-source equipment for
individual airports to maximize efficiency and manpower. Is this the
planned deployment approach on this sole-source award?
Answer. TSA will consider on a case-by-case basis whether to deploy
CT systems from multiple vendors in individual airports.
Question 6. Approximately 40 test and evaluation CT systems are
already installed in airports from various vendors, what is the planned
disposition of these systems? Will the TSA continue to evaluate this
technology?
Answer. Approximately 15 CT systems from 4 vendors have been
deployed to 14 airports to screen passenger carry-on baggage/items.
Within the next 30 to 90 days, TSA will increase the total CTs deployed
to 19 systems at 18 airports. At this time, there is no near-term plan
to dispose of these systems as they all meet the current TSA AT 2 Tier
II explosive detection standards. Additionally, since TSA will perform
future procurements for CT technology, and these companies will likely
be part of the process, these units are needed for development of
future requirements, and enhancements to algorithms and operational
features.
Question 7. Please state for the committee how the agency intends
to address CT equipment gifted to the TSA from domestic sources other
than the awardee? Related, did TSA engage airline and airport
stakeholders on this selection process?
Answer. In April 2018, TSA received an offer from American Airlines
to provide up to 5 checkpoint Computed Tomography (CT) systems from
Analogic for deployment to the following airports: JFK, LAX, MIA, DFW,
and PHL. To date, American Airlines has completed an Analogic
deployment to JFK, has one under way for LAX, and will wrap up their
commitment with an Analogic unit to MIA. With the recent announcement
by TSA to purchase 300 checkpoint CTs, American Airlines has elected to
pause on the last 2 donations of Analogic CTs for DFW and PHL. In
addition to our ability to accept CT technology, TSA is developing a
donation policy to cover CTs, Automated Screening Lanes, and other
Transportation Security Equipment (TSE) that would be made available to
aircraft and airport operators for future purchases by these entities.
However, due to the protest of the CT contract award, TSA will not
accept any CT systems as donations for operational use at this time.
Upon a decision regarding the protest, TSA will reassess whether offers
of CT technology will be accepted for operational use.
Question 8. Three CT systems were evaluated under this initial RFP
but will not be procured. Does TSA plan to designate these systems as
``approved'' or ``qualified'' under the AT/CT program? If so, what is
the time line?
Answer. At this time, none of the vendors successfully completed
the Qualification Process outlined in the Advanced Technology/Computed
Tomography (AT/CT) Qualified Products List (QPL), including the vendors
that were evaluated but not awarded under the AT/CT procurement. While
the vendors did meet the requirements for this limited AT/CT
procurement, they do not meet all of the requirements to satisfy the
requirements to be listed as ``Qualified or Approved'' for the purposes
of placing on a QPL. TSA determined that it was in the Government's
best interest to proceed to award despite not having any vendors on the
QPL, as the AT/CT systems still provided an increase in security
capabilities compared to currently deployed AT systems.
Question 9. How does TSA intend to work with Registered Traveler
(RT) vendors when considering additional changes to the passenger
screening checkpoint?
Answer. TSA continues to work cooperatively with Registered
Traveler (RT) service providers when considering additional changes to
the passenger screening checkpoint.
The primary focus for TSA at the passenger screening checkpoint is
the secure and efficient screening of all passengers. Where RT programs
fit into, and support, the screening checkpoint operations, we will
welcome RT vendor participation in the process. RT vendors participated
in TSA industry day sessions on biometrics on March 11, 2019 and TSA
PreCheck industry day on March 15, 2019.
We continue to have direct dialogue with RT vendors on areas of
mutual interest to ensure that we are maximizing security and customer
experience at the passenger checkpoint.
The RT program operates under a statutory framework, authorized in
the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA) Pub. L. 107-71,
109(a)(3) (Nov. 19, 2001), with further safeguarding provisions later
codified in the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act,
2015, Pub. L. No. 114-4, 536 (2015). Under this framework, TSA-
regulated airport or aircraft operators contract with RT entities to
provide identity verification services. TSA's security programs
prohibit RT service providers from escorting passengers past the Travel
Document Checker (TDC) and the provider must ensure that passengers
present their boarding pass to the TDC for validation. The TDC function
is an inherently Governmental function and plays the key role in
ensuring the passenger receives the appropriate level of screening.
Question 10. Administrator Pekoske, you have previously stated your
intent to de-couple qualification testing and evaluation of new
technology from TSA's acquisition cycles in order to more rapidly
introduce new capabilities and address current and emerging threats.
What steps have been taken to move forward to qualify new AIT
technology?
Answer. In fiscal year 2016, the TSA's Innovation Task Force
partnered with the vendor of an internationally deployed AIT system to
assess, for demonstration, their technology in TSA operations. To
facilitate this demonstration, DHS Science and Technology Directorate's
Transportation Security Lab (TSL) certified this technology at the TSA
lowest detection standard of AIT. With the certification, TSA procured
and deployed a small quantity of these systems for installation at U.S.
airports in order to assess the feasibility and impact of the
distinctive components of this technology. We are assessing the impact
of this equipment on security effectiveness, operational efficiency,
and passenger experience. The results are informing requirements for
future systems.
TSL continues to perform certification testing of new equipment at
the higher AIT standard. This equipment may provide the opportunity for
TSA to have two or more vendors capable of meeting the current AIT
standard. Testing is also in the process of determining if this new
system is able to perform at levels higher than our current AIT-2
detection standard.
TSA has begun updating applicable acquisition documentation to
initiate additional qualification testing for on-body scanners that
meet or exceed the current equipment standards.
Question 11. How does the TSA capture airport construction and
checkpoint expansion projects to determine the quantities and time
lines needed to properly equip new, renovated, or expanded checkpoints?
Answer. When an airport authority notifies TSA of an airport
expansion project, the project is registered in TSA's Equipment Request
Interface (ERI), which includes a list of needed Transportation
Security Equipment (TSE).
These submissions are reviewed and a capacity analysis of passenger
volumes and flight loads is conducted to determine if additional
equipment and staffing is justified.
A design review is also conducted to determine if the design
developed by the airport meets the requirements of the TSA Checkpoint
Requirements and Design Guide.
If the request for additional equipment is justified and equipment
is available, TSA actively participates in the planning process from
conceptualization of the design through full deployment and integration
of equipment to include determination of time lines, equipment needs/
allocations, and deployment phasing plans to minimize the impact to the
airport operations.
Question 12. The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 required a review
to examine potentially moving the TSL from DHS's Science and Technology
Directorate (S&T) to TSA. Would TSA's administration of the TSL support
efficiencies, alignment with the TSA mission, and hold the potential to
expedite the introduction of new, higher-performance technology and
capabilities to support U.S. airport checkpoint screening operations?
Answer. In response to the FAA Reauthorization Act requirements, a
working group was convened to examine the costs and benefits of
transferring the TSL from S&T to TSA. The review is not yet complete,
and we expect the working group to deliver the joint report and
recommendations to the Secretary in early fiscal year 2020. As part of
this effort, the working group has been tasked with providing
recommendations for better efficiencies, administration, and oversight.
Question 13. Has TSA made any progress in accomplishing your stated
goal of combining resources of TSA PreCheck and CBP's Global Entry?
Answer. Over the past 18 months, the TSA and CBP Trusted Traveler
Programs (TTP) Working Group have evaluated several potential
integration options in support of greater alignment between TSA (TSA
PreCheck) and Global Entry (GE).
As part of that effort, DHS will launch an updated, public-facing
web content designed to provide the public with consistent messaging
and specified selection options for TTPs. Through the site, applicants
will receive clear guidance on the differences between the TTPs so they
can make an informed decision on which program best suits their needs.
A second effort is aimed at coordinated marketing initiatives
across TTPs. Collaborative marketing efforts between TSA and CBP will
reduce the unintentional prioritization of one program over another and
help applicants decide which program best fits their travel needs and
habits.
While there are significant differences in the application,
vetting, and enrollment standards and processes for the TSA and CBP
programs, the Working Group will continue to identify methods to best
combine resources for increased efficiencies and to better serve the
traveling public.
Questions From Chairman J. Luis Correa for Karl L. Schultz
Question 1. In a February 2019 report, GAO found that about 45
percent of the Coast Guard's shore infrastructure is beyond its service
life, and current backlogs of maintenance and recapitalization projects
will cost at least $2.6 billion to address. The President's fiscal year
2020 budget request fails to include sufficient funding to address this
backlog. What are the potential effects of failing to invest in
upgrades to shore infrastructure?
Answer. Continuing to defer recapitalization and maintenance of
shore infrastructure is costly, creates health and safety issues, and
can lead to failures that directly impact Coast Guard operations.
However, the Coast Guard has worked with the administration over the
past couple of fiscal years to increase the priority for funding
requests for infrastructure projects.
Question 2a. The fiscal year 2020 budget proposal includes $1.2
billion to continue the Coast Guard's modernization of vessels and
aircraft. However, this funding is not sufficient to address all of the
Coast Guard's capitalization needs.
Under currently-enacted funding levels, what capability gaps does
the Coast Guard expect to face as a result of assets that will be
decommissioned before new assets are operational?
Answer. The Coast Guard does not anticipate decommissioning any
surface or aviation assets in fiscal year 2020 without replacement in
accordance with our planned programs of record.
Question 2b. Which of the capability gaps discussed in your
response are addressed by the fiscal year 2020 budget proposal?
Answer. The fiscal year 2020 President's budget supports delivery
of additional Fast Response Cutters, Offshore Patrol Cutters, National
Security Cutters, and Polar Security Cutters. Additionally, the budget
includes funding to sustain our aging rotary wing aviation assets and
missionize our fixed-wing assets.
Question 2c. What additional capability gaps, if any, would the
Coast Guard expect to face if the fiscal year 2020 budget proposal were
enacted without additional funding?
Answer. Funding included in the fiscal year 2020 President's budget
maintains the Coast Guard's highest priority acquisition project the
Offshore Patrol Cutter, and continues on-going recapitalization
projects.
Question 3. The committee has expressed concern over diversity and
inclusion within the Coast Guard. What funding does the fiscal year
2020 budget proposal include to support the Coast Guard's Diversity and
Inclusion Strategic Plan, and how does that funding compare to funding
in each of the past 5 years?
Answer. Diversity and inclusion initiatives are predominantly
policy changes and are funded from existing resources. The fiscal year
2020 President's budget includes additional funding for a focused
Personal Ready Task Force. The Task Force is part of an on-going effort
to recruit, train, support, and retain a mission-ready total workforce
that reflects the diversity and best talent of our Nation.
Questions From Ranking Member Mike Rogers for Karl L. Schultz
Question 1a. The TWIC program has had more than its share of
problems, as the GAO and the DHS Inspector General have regularly
documented, particularly regarding electronic TWIC readers. That was
why Congress, in December 2016, passed a law requiring DHS to
commission a study of the effectiveness of the TWIC program, which has
yet to be delivered to the committee. Last August, Congress passed
another law, unanimously in both Houses of Congress, suspending the
Coast Guard's 2016 TWIC Reader Rule until 60 days after DHS completes
that study and submits a report about it to Congress. Can you inform
the committee what the status of that study is?
Answer. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has directed
that an assessment of the Transportation Worker Identification
Credential (TWIC) Program be conducted. The Homeland Security
Operational Analysis Center (HSOAC), is conducting the assessment,
through a contract with the DHS Science and Technology Directorate
(S&T). It is the Coast Guard's understanding that the assessment is
expected to be complete by the end of July 2019.
Question 1b. Last year, a Federal judge stayed the effective date
of the TWIC Reader Rule because she was concerned that the Coast Guard
had not adequately analyzed its economic or security impacts. The
original study law said that, if the study identifies a deficiency in
the TWIC program, DHS must develop a corrective action plan and must
consider that plan in any rulemaking DHS conducts related to the TWIC
program. Will the Coast Guard commit that it will use the results of
the TWIC study as the basis for a new rulemaking that will address the
shortcomings of the previous TWIC Reader Rule?
Answer. Once complete, Coast Guard will review the assessment and
move forward with the TWIC Reader Rule implementation process, taking
into consideration the assessment's findings, coordination with the
Transportation Security Administration, and direction from DHS
leadership.
Question 2a. When focusing on the Coast Guard's budget theme of
``readiness,'' what is the Coast Guard's guiding strategy or plan for
achieving desires readiness?
Answer. The Coast Guard's top priority is Service readiness, the
plan for this is laid out in the Coast Guard Strategic Plan. This plan
focuses on cultivating a mission-ready total workforce through
empowering all members of the Coast Guard, broadening diversity, and
making the Coast Guard an employer of choice. In addition, the Coast
Guard will modernize assets, infrastructure, and mission platforms to
meet increasing demands. This will be done through the acquisition of
the Offshore Patrol Cutter, Polar Security Cutter, and Waterways
Commerce Cutter as well as investments in our Command, Control,
Communication, Computers, Cyber, & Intelligence (C5I) enterprise, shore
infrastructure, aircraft fleets, and other technologies that enable
mission success.
Question 2b. What is the Coast Guard's time line for achieving
readiness?
Answer. While individual assets have acquisition project time
lines, overall readiness is an on-going process as legacy assets are
recapitalized and replaced with more capable and efficient assets.
Evaluating and implementing emerging technology is also an on-going
effort with no definitive time line.
Question 2c. How will the Coast Guard's new Fast Response Cutters
improve the service's readiness and capabilities, compared to formerly-
used vessels?
Answer. The Fast Response Cutter (FRC) incorporates many
improvements over the Coast Guard's 110-foot Island Class patrol boats,
including an integrated command-and-control system, an advanced
communications suite, increased sea-keeping ability, modern armament,
and a more-capable stern launched over-the-horizon cutter boat.
[all]