U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

36–325 PDF 2007

THE PRESIDENT’S FY 2007 BUDGET: RISKED-BASED

SPENDING AT THE TRANSPORTATION

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC 

SECURITY, INFRASTRUCTURE 

PROTECTION, AND CYBERSECURITY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

FEBRUARY 16, 2006

Serial No. 109–66

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

PETER T. KING, New York, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania 

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut 

JOHN LINDER, Georgia 

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana 

TOM DAVIS, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada 

ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico 

KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida 

BOBBY JINDAL, Louisiana 

DAVE G. REICHERT, Washington 

MICHAEL MCCAUL, Texas 

CHARLIE DENT, Pennsylvania 

GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington 

JANE HARMAN, California 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

NITA M. LOWEY, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON-LEE, Texas 

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, U.S. Virgin Islands 

BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

KENDRICK B. MEEK, Florida

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC SECURITY, INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION, AND

CYBERSECURITY

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

JOHN LINDER, Georgia 

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico 

KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida 

BOBBY JINDAL, Louisiana 

PETER T. KING, New York (ex officio) 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON-LEE, Texas 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi (ex officio)

(II) 
(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page 

STATEMENTS

The Honorable Daniel E. Lungren, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of California, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Economic Security, 

Infrastructure Protection, and Cybersecurity .................................................... 1

The Honorable Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of Oregon ..................................................................................................... 15

The Honorable Norman D. Dicks, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of Washington ............................................................................................. 10

The Honorable Sheila Jackson-Lee, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of Texas ....................................................................................................... 24

The Honorable Edward J. Markey, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of Massachusetts ........................................................................................ 2

The Honorable Stevan Pearce, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of New Mexico ...................................................................................................... 11

WITNESSES

The Honorable Kip Hawley, Administrator, Transportation Security 

Administration, Department of Homeland Security 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 4

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 5

(1)

THE PRESIDENT’S FY 2007 BUDGET: RISKBASED SPENDING AT THE TRANSPORTATION 

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

Thursday, February 16, 2006

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC SECURITY, 

INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION, AND CYBERSECURITY, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:03 p.m., in Room 

2261, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Daniel Lungren [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Lungren, Pearce, Markey, Dicks, 

DeFazio, and Jackson-Lee. 

Mr. LUNGREN. [Presiding.] The Committee on Homeland Security’s Subcommittee on Economic Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Cybersecurity is meeting to examine the president’s fiscal 

year 2007 budget request for the Transportation Security Administration. 

I would like to welcome everyone to this hearing. Today, we have 

the pleasure of having the TSA administrator, the Honorable Kip 

Hawley, to give the administration’s perspective on the budget. 

We are pleased to welcome you here. 

The annual budget process is an important ritual for both the administration and Congress. It is not, as some would believe, a 

means to secure higher funding levels for our pet projects. Instead, 

it represents an opportunity to step back, take a hard look at our 

priorities and refocus on our primary missions, understanding the 

successes and failures of the previous year as a key part of the resource management. The budget, as presented, asks for $6.3 billion for TSA, $4.7 billion of which would go toward aviation security. While I support 

the requested levels, I am concerned, as are others, that we may 

be spending too much on aviation relative to other homeland security priorities. We must do a better job driving down unnecessary 

costs and improving the effectiveness and efficiency of passenger 

and baggage screening. 

Ultimately, I think we are all in agreement that TSA’s airport 

screening operations are too labor-intensive. We need to move to a 

system that has more capital-intensive to drive up performance 

and drive down operating costs. I would like to hear more about 

the administration plans to fund new inline EDS systems. 
2

The good news, Administrator Hawley, is that during your short 

tenure we have already begun to see improvements in TSA. The 

quick deployment of FAMS during Hurricane Katrina, flying in 

screeners to help the evacuation of Houston prior to Hurricane 

Rita, as well as trouble-free holiday seasons are testaments, I 

think, to your leadership and preparedness. 

The risk-based changes to the CAPPS system and I believe prohibited items list were unpopular and difficult decisions. I applaud 

you for attempting to show the agility of a department that is necessary for us to reassess our resources and reallocate them according to changing intelligence information and our best judgment as 

to what the current greatest risk is. 

The challenge, though, is that there is still a lot more work to 

do. EDS maintenance costs are projected to increase by 17 percent 

next year. We are nearing the end of the useful life of the original 

machine procured during TSA’s standup. The big bill may be just 

around the corner if we do not begin making the necessary preparations today. 

Also affecting costs are on-the-job injuries. Last year, TSA 

reached a milestone. As I understand it, she had more on-the-job 

injuries than any other federal agency. By some measures, it was 

more dangerous to TSA than it was to be working actually in line. 

The budget projects the workers’ comp claims will jump another 

57 percent in fiscal year 2007. If this is true, it is clearly unacceptable. We need to get a handle on these injuries, not just because 

of the direct costs but also because of the effect they have on attrition, absenteeism and morale. 

Screener attrition rates are still very high by our estimates. TSA 

will spend almost $15,000 to recruit, hire and train each new 

screener. We can cut down on the turnover rate. If we could cut 

it in half, we would save about $70 million annually. I look forward 

to hearing more about the proposed screener retention program. 

Lastly, I am disappointed in the proposed restructuring of the 

airline passenger fee. If the administration seeks to raise a $1.33 

billion or $1.34 billion in new security revenue, it ought to be directed on new security programs. And we would like to hear about 

that. 

So I thank you for appearing today, and I look forward to your 

testimony. 

The ranking member is recognized for 5 minutes, and maybe 

your sound system will work. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you for 

holding this important hearing with Assistant Secretary Hawley, 

and we thank you all for being here with us this afternoon. 

Mr. Hawley, I have written to you and I have written to Secretary Chertoff objecting to the decision made by TSA, by President 

Bush to allow for four-inch scissors to be brought back into the passenger cabins of planes in the United States. 

Four and a half years ago, in September of 2001, Mohammad 

Atta and nine other terrorists, in Boston, in my district, used a device like this to take over two planes and to begin a terrorist war 

against our country. They killed several hundred people from Massachusetts as they were on their way to New York City to finish 
3

their destruction of what had been a very tranquil that we had 

lived in. 

Now, you have decided to ban, Mr. Hawley, these devices, and 

you have decided to ban knives of this length, but you, President 

Bush have decided to allow the next generation of Mohammad 

Attas to bring scissors of this length onto planes, scissors that 

could be used to execute the very same kind of crime that Mohammad Atta and those other nine perpetrated in Boston, on September 11, 2001. 

Now, if you have banned a knife this length, if you have banned 

box cutters, it makes no sense for you not to ban these scissors, 

which are now flying in planes all over our country in the passenger cabins. Either they should all be legal or they should all be 

illegal. 

But you cannot have it both ways, Mr. Hawley. If people are 

going to be searching for these kind of devices and they find the 

scissors, it is just as easy for them to throw them away as well. 

Now, my bill now has 50 co-sponsors; it is bipartisan right down 

the line. It is everyone from me to Dan Burton from Indiana that 

wants these devices banned. We have the Association of Flight Attendants, which is 46,00 flight attendants that want them banned. 

We have the Association of Professional Flight Attendants, a different group, with 23,000 flight attendants who wants them 

banned. 

The Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, including all 

federal air marshals, wants them banned. The Coalition of Airline 

Pilots Association, which includes Southwest, American, UPS and 

other carriers, also opposes TSA’s decision. 

And the families of the September victims have come out in opposition to the decision of you and President Bush to allow these 

devices, these killing devices back into passenger cabins of American planes. 

I do not think because you have a problem with the number of 

screeners that the right answer is to do less screening. We need 

more screeners, not less scrutiny. And these are the experts—the 

flight attendants, the air marshals, the families of the victims of 

9/11 who are begging the administration to reverse its decision before we see the repetition of that catastrophic event on September 

11. 

And that will be, Mr. Hawley, where I am going to be grilling 

you this afternoon, because I do not think you can make the distinction between these killing devices. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you. I think my mike is now working. 

The other members of the committee are reminded that opening 

statements may be submitted for the record. 

We are pleased to have the TSA administrator, the Honorable 

Kip Hawley, to give testimony on the important priorities in the 

president’s budget. And, of course, I would just remind you that 

your entire written testimony will appear in the record, so we ask 

that you limit your oral testimony to approximately 5 minutes. 

And the chair now recognizes Assistant Secretary Hawley. 
4

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE KIP HAWLEY, 

ADMINISTRATOR, TRANSPORTATION SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. HAWLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Markey, 

distinguished members of the Committee. I appreciate your introductory comments and look forward to discussing some of the 

issues as we go. 

The President’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2007 reflects a 

strong commitment of President Bush, Secretary Chertoff, and TSA 

to the security of our Nation’s transportation systems. 

I am proud to serve under Secretary Chertoff who is revitalizing 

the Department, and in a very short time has gotten all of us on 

the same page regarding a clear DHS strategy, and has made it a 

no excuses priority for components like TSA to work in concert 

with other Department partners. 

For TSA, this means four key principles: One, making investments and operational decisions based on risk; two, taking the initiative away from terrorists by introducing unpredictability in our 

security processes; three, using intelligence to get ahead of the 

threat; and four, rebuilding and leveraging existing security network partnerships. 

Because TSA has direct responsibility for aviation passenger and 

baggage screening, aviation-related programs represent the bulk of 

our budget request. TSA has requested a total of $4.7 billion for 

aviation security. 

Technology investments continue to be a major part of our request, including $865 million to fund the acquisition, replenishment, installation and maintenance of passenger and baggage 

screening systems. 

Just as we make investments in capital to improve both efficiency and effectiveness, it is critical that we manage and deploy 

our human resources based on the principles of risk, flexibility, and 

preparedness. 

Over the last several months, we have carefully examined key 

workforce metrics and engaged our Transportation Security Officer 

(TSO) workforce on how to make improvements. Based on their 

input and our analysis, we are approaching these issues from several angles, including reducing attrition by creating a performancebased pay system; retention incentives for part-time TSOs and opportunities for career advancement within the TSO job category; 

improving effectiveness, not only by reducing turnover but by enhancing the skills of our TSO workforce through training; and continuing to reduce injury rates by reengineering baggage screening 

areas, focusing first on airports with the highest injury rates and 

quickly introducing low-cost solutions like roller tables. 

We believe the changes included in our fiscal year 2007 budget 

will provide the necessary resources to implement these solutions. 

Our responsibilities in surface transportation security, while 

funded with fewer direct federal dollars, are also critically important. I, and the senior leadership at TSA and DHS, spend a great 

deal of personal time in this area. Working in partnership with federal, state, local and industry stakeholders, TSA is focused on the 

goals of getting ahead of terrorists with good intelligence, good 
5

analysis, and good information sharing, as well as building a more 

flexible threat response capability. 

Please do not judge our surface transportation security effectiveness by simply looking at the amount of resources focused on detecting or responding to an attack that is already underway. Working with others in and out of government, our focus is to preempt 

terror attacks, disrupt them before an attack is in progress. This 

is a more effective use of resources and a much more successful approach for protecting Americans in every part of the transportation 

system. It is that approach that is reflected in this budget. 

We have already restructured TSA headquarters operations to 

provide strategic focus and serve as an information resources for 

each mode. General managers and staff are now in place, and we 

are building risk-based security strategies and programs to establish standards, assess and inspect security operations, and optimize 

the use of all of our security resources. 

TSA’s budget request includes $37 million dedicated solely to 

surface transportation security. In addition, we have requested $21 

million for TSA’s Transportation Security Intelligence Service, 

which supports intelligence and information sharing in all transportation modes. These funds are further supplemented by a requested $600 million for targeted infrastructure grants administered by the DHS state and local program office. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with the subcommittee 

for the coming year. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, 

and I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The statement of Mr. Hawley follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE KIP HAWLEY

Good afternoon Chairman Lungren, Ranking Member Sanchez, and distinguished 

Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the 

Subcommittee to discuss the President’s budget request for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) for fiscal year (FY) 2007. 

The President’s Budget reflects the strong commitment of President Bush, Secretary Chertoff, and TSA to the continued security of our Nation’s transportation 

systems. It recognizes the need for sustained investment in transportation security, 

as well as the imperative to manage and deploy our human and capital resources 

based on the principles of risk, flexibility, and preparedness.

In particular, the President’s budget requests: 

• $2.9 billion to maintain and leverage the skills of an agile TSA aviation 

screening workforce, by enhancing explosives detection and other critical skills, 

improving retention rates, and reducing injuries. 

• $865 million to fund the acquisition, replenishment, installation, enhancement and maintenance of passenger and baggage screening systems. 

• $699 million to support the sustained strategic deployment of a well-trained 

Federal Air Marshal Service to detect, deter, and defeat terrorist or criminal 

acts. 

• $131 million for credentialing and vetting programs, including $40 million for 

implementation of a new passenger pre-screening process. 

• $37 million to enhance TSA’s capability to respond to threats and 

events in the rail, transit, trucking, and maritime transportation sectors, and 

provide information and support to local government and private sector companies who share responsibility for security in these sectors. 

In total, we request an FY 2007 budget of $6.3 billion, reflecting a modest $137.9 

million increase (2%) over the enacted FY 2006 budget. 

As directed in our Appropriations Acts and consistent with the analysis of the 

Government Accountability Office, we have initiated collection of increased levels in 

the air carrier fee. We have estimated a collection level of $448 million in FY 2007 

and also anticipate receiving then $196 million of retroactive collections.
6

Risk Management 

Secretary Chertoff has refocused the resources and activities of the Department 

of Homeland Security on the greatest security risks. As we implement this standard 

in TSA, we are prioritizing our actions to address threats and vulnerabilities that 

will have the most serious consequences, particularly in terms of lives lost, serious 

impacts on our transportation networks, and economic disruption. We have already 

begun to make operational and organizational changes at TSA that support Secretary Chertoff’s risk-based strategy. 

You have seen evidence of this shift in priorities in the recent changes to TSA’s 

airport security screening protocols. These changes were based on a systematic review of the full range of measures we now employ to mitigate the risk of a terrorist 

attack on or using an aircraft, as well as the additional measures now available to 

us, including new technologies. Our analysis considered a variety of potential 

changes, including changes to the prohibited items list and screening procedures at 

TSA checkpoints, improved training in explosives detection, and the deployment of 

additional explosives detection equipment. The changes we adopted reflect the new 

and evolving threat environment, as well as what has already been done in the aviation sector to narrow our vulnerabilities. 

Our FY 2007 budget request is consistent with this risk-based focus. Of particular 

note, TSA seeks a total of $865 million, to purchase and deploy new screening technology and maintain current equipment. This request is consistent with TSA’s baggage and checkpoint screening strategic plans. The request includes an increase of 

$34 million for explosive detection systems maintenance, and an increase of $8.4 

million to deploy and maintain additional equipment at checkpoints, such as whole 

body imaging systems, automated explosives spot samplers, and cast and prosthesis 

scanners. 

Like other TSA security programs, our cargo security strategy relies on security 

threat assessments and a variety of random screening techniques, including the use 

of screening technology, canine explosive detection teams, and physical examination 

of cargo. Randomness contributes to increased security by making it more difficult 

for potential terrorists to plan and carry out attacks. 

Each year, an estimated 23 billion pounds of cargo is shipped by air within the 

United States. About one-quarter of this cargo is carried on passenger aircraft; 

three-quarters is transported on all-cargo planes. All cargo carried on a passenger 

plane has been shipped and handled only by companies that have security programs 

meeting TSA requirements and that are subject to TSA security inspections. Packages that are hand-delivered to airline ticket counters for shipment are subject to 

TSA screening at approximately 250 airports and to TSA-approved airline screening 

procedures at all other airports. In addition, more than 350 canine explosives detection teams work at 85 airports nationwide conducting random screening of cargo 

and surveillance of cargo facilities. Any cargo to be carried on all-cargo planes that 

could conceivably contain a stowaway hi-jacker is subject to random screening and 

physical examination by the air carrier. In addition, in order to further mitigate the 

threat of a hi-jacking, TSA does not permit additional passengers to ride on allcargo planes. For FY 2007, $55 million is requested for TSA’s air cargo security program to support 300 air cargo security inspectors, the Known Shipper Program, and 

the Freight Assessment Program.

Flexibility and Unpredictability 

All of the changes we instituted last fall—in our explosives detection capability, 

TSA screening protocols, and the prohibited items list—are important to maintaining and improving the viability of our aviation security processes. TSA must be able 

to adapt quickly to changes in terrorist tactics, deploy our resources effectively 

based on risk, and use unpredictability as a means to disrupt terrorist plots. The 

flexibility to make changes quickly is vital to our mission. We must retain the ability to move away from measures that are no longer needed and to move decisively 

when changes are required. 

Agility, flexibility, and unpredictability are important security concepts that must 

be applied throughout the transportation network, in every mode. In London, Madrid, and elsewhere, terrorists have demonstrated their ability to carefully plan attacks and to adapt their plans in order to take advantage of and defeat even sophisticated security systems. In the aviation arena, this led us to institute additional 

random checkpoint screening in conjunction with the changes I discussed earlier. It 

has also led us to expand our testing of behavior observation techniques to identify 

behaviors indicative of stress, fear and/or deception in order to focus appropriate resources on determining whether an individual presents a higher risk. 

In other sectors, such as transit and rail, where local governments and law enforcement agencies and private sector operators and providers have primary respon-
7

sibility for security, TSA is working to develop and implement risk-based strategies 

to support and supplement these efforts. One important component of our strategy 

is creating the capability to quickly deploy TSA security assets in a variety of transportation modes—both in response to threats and as part of our effort to insert additional elements of unpredictability into our security protocols. 

In December, TSA launched a pilot test of our ‘‘surge’’ capabilities in several cities 

over the holiday season. TSA security and law enforcement teams, including canine 

teams, were sent to these communities to augment and support local law enforcement and security in a variety of transportation modes—transit, rail, and intercity 

bus systems. Our goal was to test our ability to move quickly enough to make a 

difference under threat conditions. And not surprisingly, we learned a lot. 

First and foremost, we learned that we need to improve on-going communication 

links and information sharing through drills. We must be ready to move when and 

if the need arises. So we will be working with high risk communities to acquire a 

knowledge base about their transportation systems and develop operational relationships and communications capabilities. We will continue to disrupt terrorist planning efforts and to ensure that TSA is value-added to communities in a variety of 

transportation modes, particularly under elevated threat conditions. 

We do not, of course, rely solely on surge teams to support surface transportation security programs. The President’s FY 2007 budget requests a total of $37 

million to conduct vulnerability assessments and corporate security reviews, develop 

and deliver security training programs, conduct compliance inspections, sponsor and 

participate in security exercises, and serve as an information center for stakeholders 

in every transportation mode.

Getting Ahead of Terrorists 

Although many of TSA’s most visible programs, like aviation checkpoint screening, are intended to physically prevent terrorists from carrying out a planned attack, the reality is that much of what TSA does is focused on stopping terrorists 

before they launch an attack. 

Information, analyzed and shared, is the heart of this defense. That is why we 

are working to make TSA an information resource to support our partners and 

stakeholders in transportation security. Our goal is to make sure that our government and private sector partners have timely information and communications from 

us, so that we all can be as effective as possible—not only to respond to terrorism, 

but to prevent it, as well. 

As you know, TSA also operates a robust intelligence office that analyzes and disseminates information about threats to transportation security, serves as a liaison 

to the Intelligence Community and intelligence components of law enforcement 

agencies, and supports TSA’s ability to account for and properly manage sensitive 

and controlled documents and information. The information and analysis developed 

by this office forms the core of our threat analysis function and supports our agencywide effort to allocate resources and conduct operations based on an assessment of 

risk. 

In FY 2007, the President’s Budget requests $527 million for Transportation Security Support, including $21 million for Intelligence, $296 million for headquarters 

administration, and $210 million for Information Technology Core Support activities. 

Closely linked to our intelligence and information sharing effort are TSA’s vetting 

and credentialing functions, some of which are already in place and some of which 

are still under development. These programs include the Crew Vetting Program, the 

Alien Flight Student Program, the Transportation Worker Identification Credential 

Program, the Secure Flight Program, and Registered Traveler. Each of these programs builds upon the work of the law enforcement and intelligence agencies that 

provide the information necessary to prescreen passengers and transportation workers, and each program is built upon the premise that our strongest defense against 

terrorism is to detect terrorists before an attempt to attack. TSA proposes an overall 

funding level of $130.8 million for these programs, of which $ 76.1 million would 

come from fee revenue.

TSA Workforce Management 

Based on the level of support required in FY 2006 and requested in FY 2007, we 

have adjusted the allocation of our Transportation Security Officers (TSO) to 43,000 

FTE. In addition, by restructuring and refocusing our activities based on risk and 

maximizing the use of our personnel resources, we have reduced headquarters staffing by 164 positions, largely through attrition. However, our FY 2007 request includes $7.5 million for 30 additional FTE to improve TSA’s acquisition function. 

Much of the work of TSA is accomplished through contracts, particularly the purchase and deployment of new technologies. This additional staffing will help TSA 
8

strengthen its procurement processes and controls as well as enhance the program 

management function throughout the agency. 

We recognize that simply managing to a budget is not sufficient; we must also 

improve our effectiveness and address the underlying issues that drive our workforce costs, including hiring practices that do not meet our current requirements, 

high employee turnover rates, and unnecessarily high on-the-job injury rates. 

As you know, when TSA was created in 2002, a centralized hiring and human resources infrastructure was created to support the rapid stand-up of the Federalized 

screening workforce. Now that the agency is in an attrition-based hiring mode, that 

centralized model is no longer cost-effective. We have begun, therefore, to develop 

a local hiring and training system in order to achieve efficiencies and better meet 

our current and expected hiring requirements. These requirements include an increase in the proportion of our screening workforce that is part-time, to better 

match the daily peak-load workflow at airports. 

In addition, we recognize that high employee turnover rates drive up hiring and 

training costs. Yet our screening workforce has few upward mobility opportunities 

within their profession, and we have not fully utilized performance incentives. In 

order to encourage top performance, we are deploying a pay-for-performance system 

and have requested an additional $10 million in FY 2007 to support pilot programs 

to improve recruitment and retention. 

TSA has also taken steps to reduce TSO injury rates, which are a significant 

drain on the screening workforce. Based on the recommendations of our Screener 

Injury Task Force, we are implementing a nurse case management program TSAwide to assist TSOs in getting the medical attention they need to return to work 

as soon as possible, and we are sending teams of industrial engineers to evaluate 

the 25 airports with the worst injury rates and make recommendations for improvements, including simple configuration changes and small equipment purchases (like 

roller tables and mats) that could have significant impacts on injury rates. Nevertheless, because the workers’ compensation payments are invoiced in arrears, we are requesting an additional $20 million to support the prior year obligations owed to the Department of Labor.

Aviation Security User Fees 

Finally, I want to briefly discuss the Administration’s proposal to restructure the 

Aviation Security User Fee. As you know, aviation passengers currently pay an 

aviation security user fee of $2.50 per enplanement, with a maximum of $5.00 per 

one-way trip. This fee has not increased since it was originally imposed in early 

2002, following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Our proposal aligns the collection of the 

fee with the point at which the screening is done—upon entry into the aviation system. We propose a change in the aviation security fee structure to collect a flat fee 

of $5.00 per one-way trip. This will have the effect of equalizing the amount that 

travelers between major cities and travelers who must take connecting flights pay 

on a round-trip basis. Restructuring the fee will also generate an additional $1.3 billion in revenue, and bring the percentage of aviation security expenses covered by 

passenger user fees to approximately 72 percent. Currently, user fees cover only 42 

percent of the costs of aviation security.

Closing 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for this opportunity to discuss TSA’s budget request and the steps we are taking to improve transportation security and the efficiency of our operations. I look forward to our continued work together and would 

be pleased to respond to questions.

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Let me ask you about one of the smaller parts of your operation. 

You talked about surface transportation. I am concerned about railroads. I think, at least from our side of the table, we have only 

begun to scratch the surface with respect to that. 

I have a large rail yard just outside my district, used to be almost within a stone’s throw of the home that I had for about 14 

years; it is in Roseville, California. What degree of scrutiny is applied by your operation in terms of auditing, if you will, the security measures taken by the railroads at the present time? 

Mr. HAWLEY. Well, we have added 100 rail inspectors to TSA’s 

surface transportation effort, and they are boots on the ground 

around the country that can do personal inspections on maintain-
9

ing the integrity of what is reported as measures that are underway. 

In other words, the rail industry itself is responsible for the implementation of security measures and vulnerability assessments 

and preparedness in the event of an incident. We use our rail inspectors as a way to verify the records that are given to us. 

Mr. LUNGREN. What authority do they have? 

Mr. HAWLEY. They have pretty broad authority under the TSA. 

We have regulatory authority, inspection authority, and there is 

general authority that should there be view of an imminent security risk, they have authority to act. I should also add that we look 

at hazardous materials in its totality as opposed to just on rail or 

just on truck, and that we try to understand what common chemicals could be used as a weapon and try to trace them the whole 

supply chain. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I might just say for the record, I think it is apropos of Mr. Markey’s comments that on March 2 we have scheduled 

a classified briefing with you for all the committee members concerning the decision-making process on the prohibited items listing, 

so that you can discuss in a SCIF those things that went into that 

so that we will be following up on some of this in an area that we 

cannot do publicly. 

I would like to ask the question that I am very concerned about, 

and that is this work-related injury claims among baggage screeners. I mean, it sounds absurd that it is more dangerous to be a baggage screener for TSA than virtually any other occupation in America. How did we get to that? 

Mr. HAWLEY. Well, it is my personal, internal number one priority. It was the first thing when I came on board. I saw exactly 

what you described in terms of too many injuries. I think a lot of 

it had to do with the speed with which TSA was stood up, particularly for checked baggage where the ergonomics of the work flow 

were not really the top priority. And, as you know, a lot of our machinery is not set up in the best way so people have to do lifting 

of heavy bags repeatedly all day long. 

We are working at it in a couple of ways. We put a nurse practitioner program in so we are able to get immediate medical attention and advice to those who get hurt. It also is my top priority in 

terms of our management metrics system to track the number of 

injuries. We are going after injuries versus going after claims. A lot 

of the data is based on what claims are made, and it is my experience from the private sector that the way to really move that number is to get after the injuries themselves, to measure them, understand them. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Well, let me ask it in another way, and that is I 

am familiar with San Francisco—

Mr. HAWLEY. Yes. 

Mr. LUNGREN. —International Airport. Now, that does happen to 

have private screeners, and their injury rate, their rate of people 

not showing up because of injury is so much less than what I am 

seeing across the board. I made some inquiries with them and they 

suggested that they tried to make sure that people who could pick 

up bags are the ones that picked up bags, and I believe they have 
10

some of the inline systems in place as well and that from a management standpoint they seem to be able to handle it better. 

Mr. HAWLEY. Yes. They do an excellent job. They have a couple 

of things. They have dedicated baggage handlers for the heavy 

bags; they hire people who are specifically fit for that task, and 

those people are not transportation security officers. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Oh, we actually hire weightlifters to lift weights 

rather than screen. 

Mr. HAWLEY. I think that is a good way of putting it, yes. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Seems to make sense. It might make sense for the 

TSA federal employees to try and do the same sort of thing. 

Mr. HAWLEY. We are definitely looking at that. And the other 

piece of their program that I think is excellent really gets to the 

nurse program I was telling you about earlier. In San Francisco, 

immediately upon somebody being hurt they have somebody that 

the person goes up to in a particular office who immediately contacts the medical facility, and then they drive the injured person 

over to it. So it is very quick, which is good from the point of view 

of the person who is injured and also they assure that when the 

person is ready to get back to work that they do in fact. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much. My time is expired. When 

we come back second round I want to ask you about getting emerging technology actually applied. 

Mr. HAWLEY. Sure. 

Mr. LUNGREN. The gentleman from the state of Washington is 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DICKS. One of the most important steps in ensuring our 

transportation security is to ensure appropriate training for all employees. On the surface transportation side, TSA has not issued a 

requirement that railroads and mass transit systems train their 

employees. Do you intend to require such training in the future? 

Mr. HAWLEY. We are working within the transit community, and 

that is part of the security program that we track with them, and 

that is a very high priority part of the transit environment. On the 

rail training, we do not have anything on the regulatory side at 

this point, but, as you know, there is training in the rail industry. 

It is rather substantial. But that is something that we are looking 

at, as to what exactly that level of training is for the rail industry. 

Mr. DICKS. Now, in your budget here, you have an increase in 

the ticket tax to pay part of the cost of the TSA program? 

Mr. HAWLEY. Correct; yes, sir. 

Mr. DICKS. Would you explain that? 

Mr. HAWLEY. Sure. In the original bill for TSA, the Aviation and 

Transportation Security Act (ATSA) legislation, it was contemplated that user fees would pay for the aviation screening, and 

that is where the current tax comes from. Last year, as I am sure 

you know, TSA came forward with a proposal to increase that. 

The proposal this year is different in that it is more limited. 

Under the current system it is $2.50 a leg, a flight segment, which 

works against folks who do not take direct flights, as in rural environments. This proposal says it is a flat fee. You only go through 

screening once per flight. So it is the same $5 that you were going 

to pay twice at $2.50. In other words, it is $5, and it makes the 

people who would have paid just $2.50 also pay $5. So that is 
11

where the extra money comes from. And it is obviously directly related to the person who is benefiting from the service. 

Mr. DICKS. Now, in your presentation, you talk about retention 

issues with TSA screeners and your part-time people, it is over 50 

percent of them leave, I assume, in a rather short period of time. 

But it costs you $10,000 to train these people, as I understand it. 

What are you doing to try to work to keep these—to improve 

your retention? 

Mr. HAWLEY. Yes. Well, we have had a Transportation Security 

Officer (TSO) Advisory Committee on that. That committee recently met with me and my senior group, and we are working 

through proposals now that would include some money for retention bonuses, looking at benefits for part-time workers, tuition perhaps for students, and health benefits for retirees. 

Your point on the part-time attrition is a very serious one, because in order to manage the most efficient workforce, we need to 

have a higher blend of the part-time worker, and with that level 

of attrition it is not a good economic model. Overall, it is 21 percent, but for the part-time workers, you are right, right now it is 

about 46 percent. So that is clearly the major pain point. 

Mr. DICKS. What kind of a schedule does a part-time worker 

work? 

Mr. HAWLEY. We try to get it to be a 4-hour block of time to 

match up with the rush hour, either in the morning or the afternoon. 

Mr. DICKS. Okay. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman riding point, the lone 

ranger over there sitting by himself, the gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Pearce. 

Mr. PEARCE. I feel like the point of the spear, Mr. Chairman. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. Hawley, I am taking a look through here at your numbers. 

What is your actual labor cost now? 

Mr. HAWLEY. We spend about $3 billion. The big budget item is clearly the Transportation Security Officer. So out of the $4.7 billion for aviation security, about $3 billion of that is for Transportation Security Officers. 

Mr. PEARCE. $3 billion for salaries? 

Mr. HAWLEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PEARCE. Now, am I mistaken, that was just when I was coming in, but the initial projection for the department was $100 million and then we overspent that by about $600 million, drove it up 

$720 million the first year, so now we are at $3 billion. 

Mr. HAWLEY. I am not sure I followed the first part. What was 

the—

Mr. PEARCE. The initial numbers or estimates for cost for labor 

were going to be in the $100 million range and they ran to $700 

million, and that is where The Washington Post put that article 

out that you are paying $1,000, $1,200 rent on $5 extension cords 

and that sort of thing. That was the ramp-up that you referred to 

in—the rapid standup on page 5 that you are talking about came 

under great scrutiny by The Washington Post. And so you got basi-
12

cally the same—how many screeners did you start out with Year 

1? 

Mr. HAWLEY. Well, we came down to 45,000. I do not recall exactly. 

Mr. PEARCE. So you came down to 45,000. If my numbers are in- correct on this $100 million, $700 million, $3 billion transition, I 

would like to know, but I think I am correct. 

Mr. HAWLEY. I think the issue for today is that there was a lot 

done 2 or 3 years ago in response to put in controls and better acquisition systems for TSA, and it has not really been a problem 

over the last several years at TSA. Those controls are in place, and 

it is a more efficient system. I think the bigger cost is the turnover 

cost and is the injury cost. The combination of those two is bigger. 

Mr. PEARCE. What is your workers’ comp modifier? 

Mr. HAWLEY. I think $57 million. I know we had to move $20 

million over into that category this year extra. 

Mr. PEARCE. Do you figure your modifier like we in the industry 

have to do? You do not have to figure your cost per unit per hour? 

Mr. HAWLEY. We are definitely going there. The Labor Department ends up paying it, and it is a hockey stick. 

Mr. PEARCE. Have you checked fraud? 

Mr. HAWLEY. Yes. 

Mr. PEARCE. Do you ever find anybody that is claiming to be 

hurt? That is a big problem in the industry. Maybe it is not here, 

but I suspect that there is. 

Mr. HAWLEY. Well, we have Internal Affairs that works on that, 

and that is clearly a piece of it. 

Mr. PEARCE. What do you do when you find somebody that is 

fraudulently claiming—

Mr. HAWLEY. Well, prosecute. 

Mr. PEARCE. Have you had any convictions? 

Mr. HAWLEY. Not that I know of. 

Mr. PEARCE. Have you prosecuted anybody? 

Mr. HAWLEY. I do not know. I have to get back to you on that. 

Mr. PEARCE. What are the benefit costs, over $3 billion total 

package or is that benefits and—

Mr. HAWLEY. That includes benefits. 

Mr. PEARCE. So if we are going to break it down to benefits and labor, the $3 billion breaks how? I will let you get back to me on 

that. 

Mr. HAWLEY. It is about 30 percent benefit. 

Mr. PEARCE. Thirty percent benefit? 

Mr. HAWLEY. Rough order of magnitude. 

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, you have to tell me when that light 

turns red. I cannot—

Mr. LUNGREN. No, you keep going. 

Mr. PEARCE. Okay. It is like an auction, he will tell me when I 

bid too high. 

So we have got 30 percent of the $3 billion in benefits, and you 

have got a benefit retention program. If I am a line officer, what 

are benefits going to look like to me when you are enhancing, trying to keep stable in there? What is my initial pay and what is the 

benefit, and what is that enhanced benefit that is going to keep me 

there? 
13

Mr. HAWLEY. Okay. Rough scale, $28,000 would be your entrylevel TSO. The benefits would be for the part-time employee who 

right now does not get any benefits. And that is the population that 

turns over at 46 percent. On the regular TSO, the full-time TSO 

are—

Mr. PEARCE. So your benefits then of your part-time are going to 

be more than 30 percent of their salary. 

Mr. HAWLEY. We have not—

Mr. PEARCE. You cannot go in with partial insurance, you cannot 

go in with partial whatever, so—

Mr. HAWLEY. I think that is a fair—

Mr. PEARCE. I think that is a fair assessment? 

Mr. HAWLEY. That is a fair thing. We have not got to that point 

yet. We are in the process now of costing the different options for 

the part-timers. 

Mr. PEARCE. And how much were you requesting for these enhanced benefits that probably is the end of that—

Mr. HAWLEY. Well, we are requesting in the 2007 budget $10 

million additional for—

Mr. PEARCE. How much is already being spent for benefits for 

these part-timers? 

Mr. HAWLEY. Well, that is what we need to figure out. The ques- tion for us is, does the $10 million give us enough leverage, enough 

leverage there for the part-time benefits or is there something else 

we can do? 

Mr. PEARCE. Are you already spending money on part-time bene- fits? That was my question. You are asking for $10 million. Are you 

already doing something and that is on top? 

Mr. HAWLEY. No, sir. We have our regular fund that we use to 

pay our screener pay and benefits. We asked for an enhancement 

of $10 million to use for retention, and that is not broken out yet 

in the 2007 budget. 

Mr. PEARCE. I think the chairman is telling me—I will wait till 

the next round, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. LUNGREN. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am trying to, Mr. Hawley, figure out what it will take for TSA 

to change the rules. If someone can be stabbed to death, a flight 

attendant, in a hijacking attempt by this knife, they surely could 

be stabbed to death with scissors. 

If a flight attendant is stabbed to death, would you consider 

changing the rules back to banning the scissors as well as the 

knives? 

Mr. HAWLEY. Well, we look at the whole issue of risk balancing 

constantly, and we believe that our security measures should be 

flexible. 

Mr. MARKEY. Can you tell me the difference between this knife 

and these scissors? Could you tell the committee for the record 

what the difference is? 

Mr. HAWLEY. Yes. Yes. We did our risk analysis and from a risk 

to the aircraft point of view, neither of those items are significant 

risk items. 

Mr. MARKEY. Why have you banned the knife? 
14

Mr. HAWLEY. We had ongoing discussions with 9/11 families, 

flight attendants, others as we went through the process, and it 

was very clear that the issue of the knives was one that they cared 

very deeply about. We did statistical analysis to look at, ‘‘Okay, 

what do we benefit?’’ The reason we are doing this is to be able to 

apply more time, more effort for explosive detection. 

The scissors and small tools related to about a quarter of the 

bags we opened; whereas, all knives, including the tiny ones and 

what you have in your hand there, were only about 9 percent. So 

we took the input from the flight attendants specifically and the 9/

11 families and said that on a tradeoff there was not enough incremental benefit for us. 

Mr. MARKEY. Well, just so you know, Mr. Hawley, which I made 

as a point in my opening statement, I will reiterate it, the flight 

attendants want scissors banned, the pilots want scissors banned, 

and the families of the 9/11 victims want scissors banned. They are 

all endorsing the bill, which Mr. Crowley from New York and Mr. 

Burton from Indiana and I have introduced. 

There is no distinction in the minds of the flight attendants, the 

pilots or the 9/11 families on this issue, and I think that either you 

had to go all one way or all the other. This makes no sense whatsoever to make this kind of a distinction knowing that here in Washington they are vigorously trying to have our amendment passed 

into law and that the flight attendants are actually picketing at 

airports, passing out literature to passengers asking them to contact their congressmen to ban these scissors. 

So I just do not see the distinction. 

Now, let me move on to a second issue, which is cargo on planes. 

As you know, Mr. Hawley, at each airport in America, every single 

day, every one of us has to take off our shoes, have our bags go 

through screening, have our carry-ons go through screening, but 

meanwhile TSA’s policy is to allow on the very same plane 

unscreened air freight get right around the screening process. 

There is no requirement that an al-Qa’ida operative who is not 

even on the plane cannot put a piece of cargo on that plane that 

could cause a devastating, catastrophic explosion. There still is not 

in place in the Bush administration—and I cannot believe the 

president allows this to happen—a system that would have this 

kind of risk being posed to passengers on planes right now, all 

across America, on every single passenger plane. 

Can you once again try to explain to this committee why Members of Congress and every American has to take off their shoes, 

have their bags screened, have their checked bags go through 

screening and then allow that kind of huge loophole through which 

al-Qa’ida could exploit as a weakness to cause a catastrophic event? 

Mr. HAWLEY. Right. Well, the air freight on passenger planes is 

in fact screened, and there is a risk management basis for this. 

Mr. MARKEY. It is not physically screened, Mr. Hawley, not physically screened. 

Mr. HAWLEY. Let me just address the issue. So starting from the 

airplane and working back, what we have done is to allocate about 

20 percent of our canine capacity to work the air freight issue. If 

you have an insider threat in the airport who puts a bomb into the 

hold, if it does not come through as a package, we want to be able 
15

to mitigate that. So we start with the dog teams that go from the 

airplane and then work back into the cargo facility. 

Mr. MARKEY. You do not use dog teams—

Mr. HAWLEY. Yes, we do. 

Mr. MARKEY. —for passengers. You do not use dog teams for Mr. 

Lungren and I when we go through our airport. You use physical 

screening. Mr. Lungren and I take off our shoes every time we go 

through. There are no dogs sniffing in the general vicinity. Meanwhile, al-Qa’ida can put one of these packages on. If Mr. Lungren 

and I tried to carry that on, we would go through and the TSA 

screener would make us open that box. 

You allow that very same package to be placed on a plane by an 

al-Qa’ida operative without having ever been opened, without it 

having been screened the way Mr. Lungren and I, our package 

would have been screened. And that is not screening. That is a superficial, random attempt to identify packages that might be suspicious, but you do not have the level of scrutiny which serves as 

an effective deterrent to al-Qa’ida exploiting that loophole. 

Mr. HAWLEY. I think there are some facts—

Mr. LUNGREN. The gentleman’s time is expired but you can answer the question. 

Mr. HAWLEY. Okay. Back to the dogs. Dogs can find it if it is in 

the hold. The other thing is that any package that goes on a targeted flight, counter-to-counter, for instance, if they bring it and 

say, ‘‘I want this package on that flight,’’ it goes through the same 

explosive detection that your suitcase does in over 90 percent of the 

cases. Then you work back to the cargo environment, and, as you 

know, there is a designated high threat portion of the cargo that 

is physically screened. And, as you know, that has recently tripled 

in number. And that is just at the airport with physical screening. 

Then every package that goes on an aircraft has to be screened, 

it has to be known who the person is who is shipping it, it has to 

be known who the provider is that lets them near it. Then we have 

cargo inspectors who go out to enforce all that. So it is a layered 

security system that in fact provides a good level of security for air 

freight. 

Mr. MARKEY. Let me just say this in conclusion: If you are right, 

then we do not need TSA screeners; we just need dogs. It seems 

to be more effective. We should have dogs there. And I will tell you 

the truth: They do not file for as many workman compensation 

claims either. So it might solve Mr. Lungren’s problem as well. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Big dogs. 

Mr. MARKEY. But we know that dogs are not as good as human 

beings. We know that physical inspection of TSA inspectors is 

much more likely to identify problems. 

Mr. LUNGREN. The gentleman’s time has expired several times. 

Now, the gentleman from Oregon is recognized for at least 5 minutes. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am sorry, we were entertaining your boss, Mr. Chertoff downstairs in the Transportation Committee, so that is why I am late, 

not that I do not maintain a vital interest in your agency. 
16

Just to sort of follow up on Mr. Markey’s concerns, he has emphasized the cargo side, I have always emphasized the baggage and 

carry-on side. And I want to know why we are not entering into 

a single new letter of intent for an inline explosive detection system in this country when, first off, we know that you can get them 

to legitimately reduce your workforce and have better security and 

a more efficient aviation system. 

Why can’t the federal government enter into any new letters of 

intent? For instance, Portland, Oregon, has figured out you get a 

net return in 18 months, we have better screening of the baggage. 

A lot of people do not know. 

I mean, yes, we are screening the baggage, but we are not 

screening it all with high technology equipment. Some people are 

using swabs. Sometimes they swab inside the bag, sometimes outside. And as you know from the reports, swabbing the outside of 

a bag of a careful bomb maker will tell you absolutely nothing. 

Maybe swabbing the inside of the bag will not tell you anything either. You need to see into those bags better. 

So, one, letters of intent. 

And then, second, after you address that, if you could address 

where we are at on how quickly we are moving to improve bomb 

detection technology on persons, at the checkpoint and in carry-on 

bags. Since, again, for about the fifth time and for the third, I 

think, person in your position, I am saying the Russian incident 

was the last wakeup call we get before someday we wake up and 

read the newspapers and a bunch of planes went down by suicide 

bombers who wore suicide belts and/or they had sheet-lined briefcases and the detonator was around them. 

I am told Mr. Chertoff said this morning, ‘‘We are looking for detonators.’’ I throw into the middle of my briefcase an iPod, a cell 

phone, a BlackBerry, three different charging devices, and it is all 

piled in there. And you are going to tell me that you’ll find the car 

charger that looks an awful lot on the screen to me like a detonator 

device. And Ramzi Yousef—you know about that. Anyway. 

Mr. HAWLEY. Yes, sir. And in the tragedy that you described in 

Russia, you would not want me to come up here and say, ‘‘At least 

there were not scissors on that plane.’’ We are on exactly the same 

wavelength as far as the threat that explosives present and the 

vulnerabilities that we have. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. No, and I appreciate that you have redirected efforts there, but I am worried that we are not addressing it with a 

sense of urgency and dollars to back that up. 

Mr. HAWLEY. Well, we are absolutely addressing with a sense of 

urgency, and we had 18,000 of our TSOs trained by the Monday 

before Thanksgiving, and we have continued that training for we 

are probably up to over 25,000 of our folks. These are bomb technicians doing the training, not a trainer, but a bomb disposal expert, 

a certified bomb person working individually with our TSOs. So we 

are all over that. 

The reason that we did the scissors and the small tools is so that 

instead of their spending time looking for those, they can get 

monthly the same level of training so that it is reinforced. In fact 

there are a lot more sophisticated things we can do with our existing technology and with our existing people if we can train them. 
17

Mr. DEFAZIO. We can do better things, and I agree, but there is 

still not a substitute for follow-on technology that goes directly to 

the threat of bombs. 

Mr. HAWLEY. Absolutely. And I would say that to shortcut all 

this stuff, fiscal year 2008, fiscal year 2009 is probably the earliest 

that we can expect to get the full widespread deployment across 

the system of technology that all of us would be comfortable with 

from that perspective. 

So that says to me that in the next couple of years that my job 

is to make the most out of what we have got, and that is our approach. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Okay. But I guess that raises the issue of the number of employees. As you know, some members of Congress who 

never liked the idea of the TSA or federal workforce arbitrarily 

slashed the number a few years ago. A number of your predecessors promised Mr. Mica—we then had jurisdiction in aviation—

that they would do a bottom-up review given the fact that we do 

not have inline EDS in a lot of airports, given the fact that we are 

using other measures that are much more labor-intensive throughout the whole system, given the fact that we are putting these 

kinds of exacting demands trying to find things, that they would 

give us a bottom-up review on how many people they needed. 

We have never seen that. I think the last time you testified I 

asked you about that, and you said you thought you had enough 

people. But I still question the fact that we have not done the bottom-up review. And if that is an adequate number of—what we 

were told by the appropriators was, ‘‘Well, we are cutting it because we are buying new technology,’’ but we are not. 

There are no new letters of intent. We are not buying the new 

technology to go downstairs, so we are still requiring the TSA people to yard the bags around, swab them, do all this other stuff that 

might or might not find a bomb. I mean, when are we going to get 

letters of intent? When are we going to move to modern systems 

in our airports? 

Mr. HAWLEY. The letters of intent refer to, essentially, existing 

technology with EDS, and there is incremental improvement that 

is being rolled out, and there is money in the budget for that. 

What was the first part? 

Mr. DEFAZIO. But there are no new letters of intent. 

Mr. HAWLEY. Right. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. For instance, Portland Airport, they do not have 

the money to do it on their own. They will cost share. They show 

that within 18 months you would be saving money every day by 

having fewer TSA employees in that airport. 

Mr. HAWLEY. Right. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. And I think you would agree with me that that 

would be a more effective system to find bombs than the current 

system they are using in that airport, and I will not go into the 

details. 

Mr. HAWLEY. Yes. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. If it was the modern machines with the throughput. 

Mr. HAWLEY. For the large airports, the inline system is the way 

to go. The issue I think is money, the financing of it. It does pay 
18

for itself, it is very effective, and I do not believe there is enough 

money in the federal budget for us to be able to do that. In the private sector, there is financing that—this is something that is 

financeable—that you really have a pretty good basis for. 

And back to the number issue, I think that Mr. Pearce and Mr. 

Lungren both commented on the injuries and absenteeism. I cannot 

be comfortable telling you that we do not have enough people when 

we have the absenteeism and the injury rate that we have. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I think just to follow up on my chairman’s concern, 

I think it has been pointed out if you hired less skilled, lower-wage 

people to yard the bags around where you do not have inline EDS, 

instead of the TSA employees who are paid a higher wage and who 

are supposed to be doing something more sophisticated, that would 

take care of a good deal of that problem. I mean, I see these small 

women trying to yard—I mean, people are carrying ridiculous 

amounts of stuff, 60-pound bags. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I am sure the gentleman meant to say, you see 

small women and small men doing it. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Yes. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Yes. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I am a small man, so I did not go there because 

I am small. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much. The gentleman’s time has 

expired. And I will sometime be able to figure out how to use this 

thing. 

I will take my 5 minutes on the second round now. 

Mr. Hawley, I think you understand there is sort of a bipartisan 

feeling that we need to move toward application of technology sooner rather than later. So I guess following up on Mr. DeFazio’s questions, I would ask you, is there new authority you need or we need 

to come up with, by way of legislation, to allow what some might 

call creative financing for the capital investment necessary to get 

more of these inline systems? 

I understand that not every airport may be physically fit for that, 

but a vast number of them are, particularly the larger ones. And 

if we all agree that that would be the better way to go, both in 

terms of savings and in terms of enhanced security, can you tell us, 

do you need enhanced authority? Do we need to do something legislatively so that we can create the financing environment? 

Mr. HAWLEY. Well, that could be a solution, and we will have a 

group meeting with industry—airline, airports, TSA and some financial people—to look at that, to come up with different models 

that may in fact make a lot of sense and may in fact need some 

legislative—

Mr. LUNGREN. Well, I do not know what the answer is entirely, 

but I will say that I will commit myself and I think working with 

Mr. DeFazio and other members on both sides of this aisle that if 

you can come up with something that makes sense in a very short 

period of time, we will work very hard to try and get that done, 

because the more I look at it, the more it appears to me, and I 

think others on both sides of the aisle, that just adding more bodies 

is not the way to do it. It is more effective to have technology uti-
19

lized that also is put into place with the knowledge. And in the 

context of good intelligence that is applied as well. 

Having said that, let me be one that applauds you from the agility of your operation for having the courage to try and make some 

decisions that are tough decisions. I mean, no one wants the idea 

that someone could die with a knife. I do not like the idea that anybody would be hurt, injured, harmed, killed in any way, but the 

question is, if we have risk assessment, what is the greatest risk 

and how do we try and prevent it? 

I am reminded years ago, a friend of mine who was an attorney 

was asked to go see Charles Manson sitting in a California prison, 

and he was asked and requested to go despite his better judgment. 

The correctional officer brought him into the interrogation room, 

locked the door and left. And he told me the first thing Charles 

Manson did when he sat down was pick up a pencil and stand up 

and say, ‘‘I could kill you right now by shoving this right in your 

eye, but I do not want to.’’ Now, that is a heck of an introduction. 

But my point is, you can kill with this. I can kill with these 

hands. You can do a carotid artery chokehold, which is no longer 

allowed in my police departments right now, and—no, but my point 

is, we could go to the level of absurdity if we said we wanted to 

ensure that no one could ever attack another individual. 

And so I know that is a tough decision you had to make. And 

in our March 2 classified briefing, I hope that you can go into some 

detail. 

But maybe just on the record for people that cannot see that 

classified briefing you could give us an idea, did you consult with 

outside people or was it all within the department? 

I mean, without getting into the classified information, can you 

give us a sense of what you went through and the kinds of considerations that were made in coming to this conclusion? 

Mr. HAWLEY. Yes, sir. Very quickly, Secretary Chertoff had a second-stage review and set a strategy of risk-based decision-making. 

We then applied that to TSA and through a long process, which did 

in fact involve a lot of outside experts, we identified that plastic explosives at the passenger checkpoint was a very significant vulnerability. And then, at that point, I asked our Internal Affairs people 

to do extensive covert testing to find out exactly what was the case 

in reality as well as what we could do about it. 

It was on the basis of that report that we then moved so quickly 

for the training, and we did, as a hurry-up, urgent matter, get the 

training out there and a few other measures, including canines at 

the checkpoint that we do in fact use. 

We said that going forward we have to continue this training if 

we are really serious about closing down this vulnerability. That 

became the risk-based decision-making when somebody had to 

make the call to say, ‘‘What is more important from a risk basis,’’ 

and that person was me, and that is the call that we made. 

Mr. LUNGREN. And as we have said, we will follow up on this 

with our classified briefing on March 2. 

I understand the gentleman from Oregon cannot wait to get 

frisked by the TSA employees on his way to—

Mr. DEFAZIO. I am about to go enjoy the system, Mr. Hawley. 
20

I think this is sort of an observation, and I would like you to 

come back to us with this. San Francisco had the first inline EDS 

system in the country in addition to having had privatized employees paid at a living wage beforehand. That explains a lot of differences there. 

But have you examined the fact that whether or not those injuries are coming from a lot of the movement of the baggage and you 

have much lower worker comp claims, in part, at San Francisco because they do not have to do that; you have got inline EDS? 

Mr. HAWLEY. We have looked at that, and we have taken apart 

what injuries happened, where, et cetera. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Okay. And then the second thing just would be, as 

you know, we are considering H.R. 4439, the TSA Administration 

Reorganization Act. Do you have any thoughts on the bill, how it 

might impact the organizational changes you have made or are anticipating? 

Mr. HAWLEY. On performance management, those things are 

right in line. I think those are entirely constructive, in fact necessary, components of successfully managing TSA. So we look forward to working with the committee going forward on the bill. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you. 

The gentleman from New Mexico is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PEARCE. If I could just set the record clear. Mr. Markey’s 

comments would indicate only that people on the upper dais have 

to take their shoes off, and all of us people on the lower dais also 

take our shoes off when we go through. So let’s get that straight. 

Mr. HAWLEY. Those of us at the witness table as well. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. PEARCE. Okay. So it is just becoming more universal every 

day. 

I have got a lot of questions here. If you do not know the answers, fine, but I would like to get the answers. 

So, first of all, how many people are at entry-level, $28,000? I 

mean, how many people are at 28,000 bucks? 

Mr. HAWLEY. Oh. I would have to go break that down. 

Mr. PEARCE. My point is that I when I divide $2 billion by $43,000, I get $46,00 average across the board, and so somebody 

is quite high averaging the people up. 

And then I would also like to know what constitutes a breakdown on the $23,000 per employee for benefits. Because when I 

take one-third of $3 billion, I get $23,000 per employee for benefit, 

and I would like to know the number of bonuses paid to management, the amount of bonuses paid to management during the last 

12-month period. 

How about the average dollars of workers’ comp claim? 

Mr. HAWLEY. I do not know. 

Mr. PEARCE. How about the total dollars of workers’ comp claim? 

Mr. HAWLEY. Fifty-seven million dollars is what we have in the 

budget. 

Mr. PEARCE. Fifty-seven million dollars, and did you spend that 

last year? 

Mr. HAWLEY. Yes, $36 million for 2004. These lag. 
21

Mr. PEARCE. Thirty-six million dollars. And so do you know approximately how many claims that you had? I mean, from a management point of view, for you not to have these firmly in mind because the dollars per claim is a very significant number. And that 

may be the most important number I would like to see from the 

dais is the number of claims, and I will do my own math or you 

can divide it out and figure out. But I would like to know the highest amount you paid and the average amount. 

Mr. Mica, in public, recently made the assertion that $5.8 billion 

of technology screening devices—and $5.8 billion may not be the 

right number—but he made the assertion that a significant purchase of screening devices may be absolutely wasted money. Are 

you aware of any problems with any equipment that you are having? 

Mr. HAWLEY. Well, not to the extent that it would be wasted 

equipment. They require maintenance. Some have better performance than others, but I would not characterize it as wasted. 

Mr. PEARCE. How deep a difficulty is there? 

Mr. HAWLEY. I think the bigger issue is the fact that our EDS 

machines are coming up to end of their life, and at that point there 

is going to be another wave that we need to do something about. 

Mr. PEARCE. In the chairman’s comments, how big a problem do 

we have, you said it is not probably a complete waste, but how 

much of a percent would be probably wasted or very ineffectively 

spent on previous equipment? 

And where I am going with that is the whole operation of the department and the effectiveness, the ability to see new technology 

and evaluate it and get good purchasing. 

Mr. HAWLEY. Yes. We have a pipeline of technology that goes 

through review at the tech lab, and I think there is the lag that 

I spoke of earlier. 

Mr. PEARCE. No. I am asking the other question about how much 

percent of that money that you said is not totally wasted when you 

said it be a mischaracterization. About how much of the money 

would you guess was wasted? Do you think it was 100 percent effective program for technology that Mr. Mica is complaining about? 

Mr. HAWLEY. I am really not familiar with what Mr. Mica said. 

Mr. PEARCE. Okay. What about the agile workforce you talk 

about? How much capability do you have to respond to areas where 

the—at what point do you begin to move people in? 

Mr. HAWLEY. Yes. Well, Katrina is an example, probably a very 

major example, where we moved about 700 people—

Mr. PEARCE. Let’s go day to day. That is too exceptional. Let’s 

go to the day-to-day when you reach full load and people are waiting for an hour and half here at Reagan Airport. When do you start 

moving your agile work force around to shorten that? 

Mr. HAWLEY. We move them every shift. If you go to just tracking DCA, for example, on any given day, you will see people moving 

from pier to pier, checkpoint to checkpoint, to match particular—

Mr. PEARCE. But you do not have the capability to move people 

from another airport if we have continual delays at Reagan, all terminals. 

Mr. HAWLEY. Yes, sir. We do have that ability. 
22

Mr. PEARCE. What is the trigger point when you start moving 

people from one airport to another? 

Mr. HAWLEY. If it is a systemic issue, if we think that we are 

misstaffed, for instance—

Mr. PEARCE. So you do not have that quantified as subjective if 

it is systemic. In other words, from a management perspective, I 

think it would be nice to say if the delays are over 3 hours for over 

3 days, or something, but if you say it is just if it is systemic, that 

is less of—

Mr. HAWLEY. Well, we review it daily, and if, for instance, an airport is having abnormal wait times, then we get to the bottom of 

it. For instance, with Independence Air ceasing operations at Dulles, we look at that and say, ‘‘Okay, what does that mean to the 

staffing,’’ and we review all that. 

We look at our peak wait times as the main number, and those, 

as you probably know, are way down in the 12-minute maximum 

on average. So I think that our overall performance on wait times 

is very good. 

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you. 

Gentleman from Massachusetts for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to clarify for the record the 

current policy of President Bush on cargo security. Almost none of 

the cargo on passenger planes is ever inspected before it is loaded 

onboard. 

The screening that Mr. Hawley referred to is paperwork checks 

or dog team sniffing—not the type of scrutiny that every passenger 

and every passenger’s bag receives to be placed upon that very 

same plane. 

This cargo is placed underneath the feet of those passengers on 

that plane. It is not given what we consider to be screening, that 

Member of Congress, when we are taking off our shoes it gives a 

great deal of assurance to the other hundreds of people looking at 

us. They think they are secure. Little do they know that an alQa’ida operative could have put cargo on that very same plane. It 

did not go under the same screening. 

The random physical inspections of cargo that Mr. Hawley mentioned is full of more holes than Swiss cheese. There are so many 

exemptions to this random screening as to render it virtually 

meaningless. 

But you do not have to take my word for it. In October of 2005, 

GAO issued a report entitled, ‘‘Federal Action Needed to Strengthen Domestic Air Cargo Security.’’ I think that the title of that study 

tells you everything you need to know about the problem with 

cargo on planes. And I ask unanimous consent to insert the GAO 

report in the record at this time. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Without objection, so ordered. Do you want the 

picture too? 

Mr. MARKEY. It would, I think, make it like the—the Wall Street 

Journal eventually moved to cartoons and the New York Times to 

color, and so our reports could have a little bit of—now, let me ask 

you one final question, if I may, Mr. Hawley, and that is on transportation of hazardous materials. 
23

I have introduced a bill to improve the security of shipments of 

dangerous chemicals such as chlorine, which travel through our cities and towns every day and represent tempting targets for terrorists. I am concerned, particularly since we saw in South Carolina 

just a couple years ago, a deadly HazMat accident can create a 

mess in a city. 

My question is, why won’t the Bush administration support a requirement that requires HazMat shipments to be rerouted when 

possible around high-threat areas in the United States? Why does 

President Bush oppose that? 

Mr. HAWLEY. For the record, first, there are some factual things 

I need to clarify. In fact the screening that occurs that we talked 

about on the random basis does in fact use ETD trace machines, 

which are identical to the ones that are used for the passenger at 

the checkpoint. 

Also, on the counter-to-counter cargo that I mentioned, those go 

through the same technology, including EDS technology, that is 

used for passenger bags. So for the freight that we deem to be high 

threat on a passenger aircraft, we do use advanced technology on 

that in addition to the other layers. 

On the issue of the chlorine in HazMat—

Mr. MARKEY. Well, again, and I hate to interrupt you there right 

now, but I maintain that you have no idea what the high threat 

is. In other words, there were two flights that were going to LA 

from Boston on that day that Mohammad Atta hijacked those two 

planes. Today, those two planes every day are still flying to L.A., 

and there is cargo being placed on those planes. And it might be 

some shipment coming down from New Hampshire, from Maine, 

from wherever, 100 miles out, like 5 a.m. in the morning getting 

at the airport. 

You have no idea who is actually working at those facilities. You 

have no idea who packed those boxes. You have no idea whatsoever. If you are determining that they are not high-security risks 

just because you trust that company, then I do not believe that you 

should be using the word, ‘‘high risk,’’ when you are just single out 

a small percentage. 

Because from my perspective, they are all high risk because you 

have no idea where most of this cargo is coming from. You do not 

know who is packing a huge skid of lobsters, packing it tight and 

slipping a bomb into it and sending it down to a plane to be sent 

across our country. You do not know who is working there. Could 

be 100 people whose names you do not even know. And it could 

have been someone just hired yesterday just for that very purpose. 

And they know it goes on. The same plane every day with no scrutiny. 

And I just think that by saying that you pick out what you think 

is the high risk for cargo misses the point that almost all of it is 

high risk because of the porous nature of this paperwork check that 

TSA uses hundreds of miles away from an airport in order to determine whether or not there is a risk. 

And if you may, just answer the question on the HazMat shipments and why President Bush continues to oppose rerouting it 

away from the most dangerous—
24

Mr. LUNGREN. The gentleman’s time has expired, but you may 

answer the question. 

Mr. HAWLEY. The short answer is that in high-threat environments, they are voluntarily rerouted. They work with the railroads, 

and we have had no problem at all in that. We also work against 

the whole spectrum of HazMat to identify the most hazardous and 

how we deal with those, how we know where they are, and know 

where they are particularly in patterns. We have done very sophisticated analysis on all of this. It is a high priority. Also, also we 

look at motor carrier in addition to the rail for HazMat. 

Mr. MARKEY. I do not think you get enough money to do your job. 

I know it is not your fault. Tax cuts are more important and so is 

the war in Iraq. I just think they continue to nickel and dime your 

area, Mr. Hawley. It is not your fault, but you are told to cover a 

king-sized bed and you are given a regular-sized bed sheet. No 

matter which way you pull it, you are going to have leave areas 

of vulnerability that al-Qa’ida can exploit. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Gentleman’s time has again expired, and the 

gentlelady from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me 

offer my apologies. We had the Management Subcommittee that 

was going on at the very same time as this committee. 

And I do appreciate that we had the kind of overlap that did not 

allow me to be here, Mr. Hawley, at the beginning of your testimony. But I am going to use the time with your indulgence to 

speak to a number of issues. 

But I specifically want to start out by just noting, and I come 

from Texas, so I speak nationally to the extent that it seems that 

only 37.2 million in TSA’s budget is for non-aviation transportation 

security. That seems to be more than imbalanced and particularly 

with the incidents in Baltimore, particularly the incidents in New 

York that had to with—at least the New York incident with the 

transportation concerns. 

I also want to raise the question of the—and forgive me for—I 

have got other issues in my head having just deal with the Border 

Security initiative—but the new expedited travel process that was 

a pilot program. We tried to get it extended but I understand now 

that we may be using it—it may be in place, and I would like you 

to just detail that for me and recount for me the budget that is 

going to move that quickly and whether there is enough in the 

2007 budget for that. 

And then I want to include—I am just looking at something here 

in Houston on surface transportation but I will get to that as well. 

But let me just try to find out what kind of resources, if any, 

TSA has had to utilize in the backdrop of Katrina. Has there been 

any sort of expenditures that one had to utilize? I know that airports were shut down, TSA employees removed. I am not sure if 

TSA employees had to be transferred in. TSA employees lost their 

own homes and therefore were impacted negatively and whether 

there is any expenditures as it relates to that. And whether or not 

there is any cleanup or security issues that relates to Hurricane 

Katrina. 

I also want to—I know you are taking some mental notes, but 

I am going to just launch into something at this point, and I thank 
25

the chairman for his indulgence. For those of us who are living in 

the region and frequently experience hurricanes, it is difficult for 

any of us sometimes to identify with the climatic elements of a region. May be difficult for some to understand mudslides or earthquakes because they are not on the west coast, some to understand, 

if you will, tornadoes because they are not on the plains of Oklahoma. 

But I do think that homeland security is just that, it is securing 

of the homeland. And I have committed myself to making this 

statement at every hearing relevant to homeland security. 

One, this is not a comment on the chairman of this committee 

or the chairman of the full committee, it is a comment on, I believe, 

the duty of the Homeland Security Committee to engage in extensive oversight. 

So we are now doing this in the framework of a budget, but I believe that we should be, if necessary, meeting once a week because 

maybe if we had been meeting once a week, we would not have had 

the pronouncement that Secretary Chertoff was both ineffective 

and late in his actions on Hurricane Katrina, that there was no 

designated leader to be able to convene and coordinate to save possibly some lives out of the 1,300 or maybe 1,300 lives. 

So, in essence, you are part of the Homeland Security Department, Mr. Hawley; you are TSA. We know we merged thousands 

of thousands of personnel together to get many, many departments. 

But you might speak to this whole question of oversight because, 

frankly, I have given Secretary Chertoff today a failing grade and 

truly believe that he should be fired, if not censored or reprimanded. 

And I was very disappointed at his lack of passion, concern, 

blame this person and that person for his failures. 

I am going to yield to you right now. You might just quickly answer and also give me your perspective on oversight and as well 

why don’t you recount for me the last meeting that you had with 

Secretary Chertoff and whether or not you all are engaged in regular meetings, and is there oversight within the department? 

Mr. HAWLEY. Yes. Yesterday I participated in a meeting with the 

heads of the component agencies within DHS and the Deputy Secretary where we went through an extensive management review. 

The previous week I met with the Secretary in that same context 

where the Secretary was driving his incident management initiatives. Before you came I mentioned that one of the things he has 

brought to the Department is a no excuses priority of having the 

component agencies work well together at the top and all the way 

through. So he has enforced that with weekly meetings. 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. But you do not know why that did not work 

during Hurricane Katrina. 

Mr. HAWLEY. Well, we did have phone conversations among ourselves and obviously with our operation centers, but as far as TSA 

and Katrina are concerned, we had, as you may know, about 300 

or 400 folks who were completely wiped out in terms of their 

homes. We immediately offered them employment at any airport in 

the United States they could get to. So that was a successful thing. 

And for those flying out of DCA today, you will see one of our folks 

from New Orleans. 
26

We had over 700 people fly in to assist and effectuate the largest 

civilian airlift in United States history prior to Katrina, to get that 

airport moving out without damage or violence. And I am very 

proud of the work that the men and women of TSA, both Federal 

Air Marshals and Transportation Security Officers, did. 

And I have outside of my personal office a poster that was given 

to me by someone who worked in Beaumont during Hurricane Rita. 

I know we talked during that time about the concerns there, and 

it was given to me in recognition of the men and women who came 

on zero notice to get on an airplane to evacuate those people from 

Beaumont. 

So it is foremost in our minds, both personally as well as professionally, and we have a plan now for any of the communities that 

have hurricane vulnerability to put in place their incident management of how we would flow the resources amongst them. 

We have a plan where if on any give day within 4 hours, our 

standard is to be able to move 500 Federal Air Marshals anywhere 

and 500 Transportation Security Officers anywhere. That is a result from some of the intensity that we felt after Hurricane 

Katrina. We think it is, as you mentioned, an all-hazard type of capability. We talked before you came about our flexibility, and that 

is an example of that. 

And I think the number one thing Secretary Chertoff has 

brought is clarity of strategy to this Department, where we call can 

in fact line up together and operate in the same direction, and I 

think that is a profoundly important thing to happen for a department, as you mentioned. It was thrown together with all those 

folks. 

I get tremendous benefit from working when I need to with U.S. 

Customs and Border Control (CBP) or Secret Service or Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to combine our activities. 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Well, I will just say this: I am an open book, 

but harshly, I saw none of that coordination and effectiveness and 

talent, frankly, during Hurricane Katrina. And as a Congressional 

committee has just rendered a report, the title, ‘‘Failure of Initiatives,’’ it is so glaring. And I frankly think that there has been less 

than credible sensitivity or concern expressed by the leadership of 

the Department short of appearing before committees and being 

complimented for taking it on the chin and doing such a great job. 

Again, Secretary Chertoff was before our full committee, but because he had to go to lunch, many members were not able to fully 

complete their questions. So might I just say this to you as I put 

these on the record and thank the chairman for his indulgence. I 

am not going to criticize a coin because I believe in complementing 

employees, and I understand you purchased these to share with 

these outstanding workers the work that they have done. But in the course of Hurricane Katrina, $431 million was spent 

on deadbeat mobile homes that are sunken in mud, and no-bid contracts were given out without any bidding process. Any opportunity 

for Katrina survivors to work and/or to obtain those contracts and 

the wastefulness of that will be renowned, I am sure, in our history 

books. 

I do not see any streamlining, effectiveness, leadership. And, 

clearly, if those processes were in place, the secretary would have 
27

been down in the region. And I might I say this: It is not my intent 

to speak ill in the absence of any leadership of our government. 

Sometimes we are not in the same room. I would welcome to have 

the secretary in the room for a period of time. 

And the only reason I utilize my comments here because Michael 

Brown was an excellent scapegoat, but Michael Brown answered 

phone calls, whether or not he was adequate in his answers, but 

the secretary of this department did not return the phone calls of 

members who were in the Gulf region. 

It seems to me that that leadership or the opportunity to receive 

information from those of us who halfway understood hurricanes 

would have been the prudent thing to do; he did not. 

And so I conclude—I am going to have questions in the record, 

but I do want you to answer the question of the limited amount 

of money that is for surface transportation, non-aviation transportation security. Seems that we are misdirected in that. And also 

what structures are being put in place? TSA has developed a bad 

rap, and I am not going to criticize this but birthday parties or 

whatever kind of holiday parties and celebratory parties that spent 

up a lot of money is not a good image to really put in place. 

And, also, I like the air marshals. There are some bad apples in 

every group, but I want to be sure that you are training, vetting 

and being responsive to the quality of air marshals that we have. 

That is a question I will put on the record because I am not sure 

if the chairman is gaveling me down, but if you have a way of answering it, I will take it. 

But the other point is that, just as I conclude, air marshals inform me since we travel back and forth, and that is why I end on 

this note, that the leadership in the department was enormously 

ineffective. That is that they were there and offered their service 

in Hurricane Katrina, and nobody could tell them what to do and 

when they wanted to do work in areas that was not their job description, they were told that they were not allowed to do that nor 

were they going to pay overtime. And so you just sit down and do 

not bother to help. 

This is the face of America, the enormous failure starting at the 

top, because homeland security is manmade terror and it is the responsible person or entity for natural disasters. And you absolutely 

failed. And these are just small nuances. I am sure if I started 

looking deeper, I would find a whole potpourri of failures. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I would just say that I did not gavel the 

gentlelady down. I extended the time of three time periods because 

we gave three rounds to everybody here. 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. And I thank the chairman. 

Mr. LUNGREN. If Mr. Hawley would like to respond. 

Mr. HAWLEY. I would. You mentioned that commemorative coin. 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. I did not criticize you on that. 

Mr. HAWLEY. I appreciate that, but I want you to know that we 

had the federal air marshals go down there. We had 6,000 people 

who were completely desperate, wearing nothing, in some cases, 

other than undergarments, and you know what that was like. 

There were 6,000 people in that airport without much law enforcement at all. 
28

We had our guys go in there, and they volunteered, and we had 

over 500 of them there, and they were literally carrying people in 

all states of dirtiness through the checkpoints, out the concourse, 

down the ladder, across the tarmac, up the ladder to the airplane, 

and into the seats. And they did it for 24,000 people. 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. And I have no criticism. I guess what you are 

doing is telling a story. You have my accolades. I have no criticism 

of that. I want you to know that air marshals wanted to do more 

and they were restrained by management that they could not—

there was overtime or they could not a number of things. So that 

is another hearing maybe, but I am telling you, this is not a criticism, this is a compliment wishing there was some management 

that could have given them even additional opportunity to be helpful. 

Mr. HAWLEY. I was just going to say that with our Transportation Security Officers, I met with them, I was down there with 

them. I did not see anybody at any time say anything other than, 

‘‘Thank you for the opportunity to serve these people.’’

Mr. LUNGREN. I thank the gentleman for his comments. 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. And I will put questions in the record, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Yes. 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. And thank you. 

Mr. LUNGREN. And I thank the witness. I believe all the members who attended had a chance to have three rounds or the equivalent of three rounds for you to answer their questions. I appreciate that. 

The members of the committee may have, as you have heard, 

some additional questions that they will submit in writing, and we 

have asked you to respond to these. 

The record will be held open for 10 days, and without objection, 

the subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:25 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ