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) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

76–515 PDF 2012

LAST LINE OF DEFENSE: THE FEDERAL AIR 

MARSHAL SERVICE 10 YEARS AFTER 9/11 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION 

SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

FEBRUARY 16, 2012 

Serial No. 112–69 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/ 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

PETER T. KING, New York, Chairman 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

JOE WALSH, Illinois 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

BEN QUAYLE, Arizona 

SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

ROBERT L. TURNER, New York 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California 

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

JACKIE SPEIER, California 

CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana 

HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan 

WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts 

KATHLEEN C. HOCHUL, New York 

JANICE HAHN, California 

MICHAEL J. RUSSELL, Staff Director/Chief Counsel 

KERRY ANN WATKINS, Senior Policy Director 

MICHAEL S. TWINCHEK, Chief Clerk 

I. LANIER AVANT, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION SECURITY 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama, Chairman 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

JOE WALSH, Illinois, Vice Chair 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

PETER T. KING, New York (Ex Officio) 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois 

JACKIE SPEIER, California 

CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi (Ex Officio) 

AMANDA PARIKH, Staff Director 

NATALIE NIXON, Deputy Chief Clerk 

VACANT, Minority Subcommittee Lead 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

STATEMENTS

The Honorable Mike Rogers, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of Alabama, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation Security ......... 1 

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

State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Transportation 

Security ................................................................................................................. 2 

The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress From 

the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Committee on Homeland 

Security: 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 21 

WITNESSES

Mr. Robert S. Bray, Assistant Administrator for Law Enforcement, Director, 

Federal Air Marshal Service, Transportation Security Administration; Accompanied by Michael Novak, Assistant Administrator, Training and Workforce Engagement, Transportation Security Administration, and Roderick 

J. Allison, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Law Enforcement, Deputy 

Director, Federal Air Marshal Service, Transportation Security Administration: 

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

Joint Prepared Statement ................................................................................... 6 

Mr. Charles K. Edwards, Acting Inspector General, Office of the Inspector 

General, Department of Homeland Security: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 8 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 10 

(1) 

LAST LINE OF DEFENSE: THE FEDERAL AIR 

MARSHAL SERVICE 10 YEARS AFTER 9/11 

Thursday, February 16, 2012 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION SECURITY, 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:27 p.m., in Room 

311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Mike Rogers [Chairman 

of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Rogers, Cravaack, Turner, Jackson Lee, 

and Richmond. 

Mr. ROGERS. The committee on Homeland Security Subcommittee on Transportation Security will come to order. This subcommittee meeting is today to discuss the important work of the 

Federal Air Marshal Service. I want to thank every one of our witnesses for being here today and the time and commitment it took 

for you to prepare your remarks, and the inconvenience of making 

time for one of these hearings. I can tell you what you have to offer 

helps us a lot as policymakers. So we appreciate your time and effort. 

As a senior Member of this committee since its creation, and in 

leadership of three unique subcommittees, I have focused my energy on ensuring that we do not just address the past, but that we 

are adequately equipped to respond to the threats of today and tomorrow. We all know that the outcome of one of the darkest days 

in our Nation’s history could have been very different if we had 

Federal Air Marshals on those planes. But the reality is the terrorists have adapted to our security measures and changed their tactics. We saw this on Christmas day in 2009 and in other attempted 

attacks since 9/11. 

The threat of an IED being detonated aboard an aircraft is very real. With an annual budget approaching $1 billion, we need to ask 

the question of whether today’s Federal Air Marshall Service is capable of preventing current and future terrorist threats? What new 

efficiencies can be gained to reduce the cost of the program? 

In the aftermath of 9/11, the Federal Air Marshal Service, or 

FAMS, evolved into the primary law enforcement entity within 

TSA deploying air marshals on countless domestic and international flights everyday. TSA has undergone many changes since 

its formation after 9/11, but FAMS has largely maintained its autonomy throughout the years. Both its annual budget and its dayto-day operations and training are separate from the rest of TSA. 
2 

Recently Administrator Pistole announced sweeping changes to 

TSA’s internal organization and structure, which included the Federal Air Marshals Service. I want to ensure that this reorganization does not set the air marshals back in any way particularly 

with respect to training operations or adding unnecessary layers of 

bureaucracy. 

While I can understand TSA’s desire to restructure itself amidst 

all the criticism it gets, it should not make these types of decision 

in haste. The ultimate goal should be to provide security while reducing the cost to the taxpayer in a tight economy. So if reorganizations such as this do not lead to any cost saving, it is difficult 

to see the logic behind it or to support it. 

From what we have been told, TSA’s reorganization will not result in any tangible cost savings. I would urge the witnesses today 

and other officials at TSA and DHS to look at this committee as 

a partner in your efforts. The sooner we are informed of the 

changes you plan to make, the better. Today I look forward to hearing directly the leadership of Federal Air Marshal Service about 

these recent reorganizational changes, how air marshalls are 

adapting to the constantly revolving threats we face from terrorists 

and ways we can reduce the burden on taxpayers. 

With that I now recognize the Ranking Member of the subcommittee, the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee for 5 minutes for her opening statement. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Good afternoon. Thank you very much, Mr. 

Chairman. I would like to thank the witnesses for being here today 

to discuss the Federal Air Marshals Service. I would also like to 

thank Chairman Rogers who knew of my interest and my request 

for this hearing for holding this important and timely hearing, and 

to take a closer look at the Federal Air Marshal program and discuss the recent findings in a report released last week by the Department of Homeland Security inspector general. 

The Aviation Transportation Security Act of 2002 designated the 

Federal Air Marshal Service as a law enforcement organization 

within the Transportation Security Administration. Prior to September 11, the Federal Air Marshals comprised a workforce of 33 

sky marshals. After 9/11, it became clear that a 33-person unit 

would not be sufficient to protect the American flying public from 

a new threat. The idea of Federal Air Marshals, I believe, is again, 

as I have said often in this committee, part of the front line of defense of the American homeland. Our FAMS were vastly expanded 

to address when our abilities exposed on 9/11. The Federal Air 

Marshal serves as the last line of defense for thousands of passengers on flights both domestic and international. 

While FAMS police our skies and protect passengers, we must 

wonder what happens when they leave the airport and return to 

the office. In the last 3 years, we have learned about a hostile work 

environment epitomized by the use of a crude game to demean 

FAMS who are women, minority group members, or gays. 

Today the inspector general will testify that 47 percent of the 

survey responders fear retaliation if they speak out about workplace conditions. Today, we will hear from the leadership of FAMS 

about the plan to correct the workforce issues that have long 

plagued this organization. 
3 

We will also hear from the inspector general about the recommendations he has made to remedy the issues at FAMS. 

Compounding my concern about the inspector general’s report is 

the fact that the workforce challenges at FAMS are not new. In 

2005, the GAO released a report recommended that FAMS developed a communication strategy to change, to share expectations, 

and report related progress within its workforce. 

In 2009, the GAO released another report recommending that 

the director of FAMS take appropriate actions to increase of the 

usefulness the workforce satisfaction surveys. Today we will receive 

testimony from the IG recommending that the director of FAMS 

provide increased transparency and forms of communication across 

the organization, particularly between rank-and-file FAMS and 

management. It seems that every examination of FAMS, whether 

by GAO or the inspector general, finds a workplace that needs improved transparency, increased communication, and opportunities 

for upward mobility. Knowing some of the FAMS myself and seeing 

them at work, I know that they are however dedicated and committed to serving the American people. We must allow everyone to 

serve in dignity as a FAM on behalf of the American people. 

It is also clear that every examination since 2005 has yielded a 

promise from FAMS management that practices would improve 

and conditions would change. It appears that those promises have 

not been kept. They do not want to hear about new promises. 

Today I want to learn how FAMS leadership will keep its commitment to those Federal Air Marshals who risk their lives everyday 

to protect the flying public. 

I frankly, in conclusion, would like to see FAMS increased and 

introduce H.R. 71 which would increase the number of Federal Air 

Marshals for certain flights, require criminal investigative training 

for such marshals, create an office and employment ombudsman for 

marshals, and for other purposes. 

I am committed to the excellence of FAMS, I want to see the 

leadership and the team working together, but as well, working together with a diverse force, if you will, that can work harmoniously 

on behalf of the American people. I look forward to hearing from 

Director Bray on what actions he intends to take to direct workforce challenges once and for all. With that Mr. Chairman, thank 

you so very much and I yield back. 

Mr. ROGERS. I thank the gentlelady and other Members of the 

committee are reminded their opening statements can be submitted 

for the record. We are pleased to have several distinguished witnesses before us today on this important topic. Let me remind the 

witnesses that their entire statements will appear in the record 

and you will be given 5 minutes to summarize it, so we can get to 

the Q&A. 

First witness is Mr. Robert Bray, he currently serves as the assistant administrator for law enforcement and the director for the 

Federal Air Marshal Service, TSA. Mr. Bray began his career with 

FAMS in 2003 as an assistant special agent in charge of the mission operation center at the FAA, technical center in Atlantic City, 

New Jersey. Mr. Bray is joined by two of his TSA colleagues, Mr. 

Michael Novak who currently serves as the assistant administrator 

for training for workforce engagement, and Mr. Roderick Allison 
4 

who currently serves as a deputy assistant administrator for law 

enforcement. 

Mr. Bray will be offering an opening statement on behalf of himself, Mr. Novak, and Mr. Allison. He is now recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT S. BRAY, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR 

FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL AIR MARSHAL SERVICE, TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION; ACCOMPANIED BY MICHAEL NOVAK, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, TRAINING AND WORKFORCE ENGAGEMENT, 

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, AND RODERICK J. ALLISON, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR 

FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FEDERAL AIR 

MARSHAL SERVICE, TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. BRAY. Good afternoon and thank you, Chairman Rogers, 

Ranking Member Jackson Lee, and distinguished Members of the 

subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today about 

the Transportation Security Administration’s office of law enforcement, Federal Air Marshal Service, and our mission to detect and 

deter terrorist threats to the Nation’s transportation systems. With 

me today is former FAMS Deputy Director Mike Novak, who is 

now TSA’s assistant administrator for the Office of Training and 

Workforce Engagement. Mr. Novak was a former assistant director 

of training for the FAMS. 

In addition, I also want to introduce Mr. Roderick Allison, who 

was recently named as the deputy director of FAMS and has most 

recently served as our assistant deputy director for flight operations. 

I would also like to introduce Joe Samuels and Mel Caraway, 

they are respectively, the new supervisory air marshals in charge 

of the Orlando and Dallas office. 

Mr. ROGERS. Welcome. 

Mr. BRAY. Before 9/11, the FAA employed just 33 air marshals 

who flew primarily international missions. Following the passage of 

the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, FAMS was officially 

transferred to TSA. Today Federal Air Marshals are the primary 

law enforcement entity within TSA and are deployed on flights 

with the United States and around the world, and Federal Air 

Marshals make great personal and professional sacrifices every day 

in the performance of their vital mission to our Nation. 

Transformation within the Department of Homeland Security led 

to a period in which the FAMS transition to the U.S. Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement Agency, ICE, before returning to TSA in 

2005. Today OLE/FAMS serves DHS in a variety of critical roles. 

We operate the Freedom Center, which contains the transportation 

security operation center also known as the TSOC, as well the 

K–9 training program. 

Within TSA’s office of security operations, we administer the visible intermodal prevention and response program, which is also 

known as VIPR, which is aimed at enhancing transit security. 

Additionally, we manage the personnel security clearance process 

for TSA, and conduct both joint vulnerability assessments for air-
5 

ports as well as man portable air defense systems, or MANPADS 

assessments. Ten years after 9/11, our mission is no longer separate from TSA’s other transportation security missions. 

Today our responsibilities make us a key component of TSA’s 

transportation security counterterrorism strategy. As you know, 

TSA is currently implementing an agency-wide transformation initiative. The plan reflects a fully integrated FAMS realigned and 

operational divisions that support and enhance the TSA law enforcement mission. This new structure will enable TSA to more efficiently and effectively execute its day-to-day National security mission imperatives, establish a meaningful and realistic strategic vision for its law enforcement programs and maintain the flexibility 

needed to address evolving and emerging threats to the Nation’s 

transportation systems. 

A highly trained workforce is essential to the success of TSA. 

Transitioning the FAMS training center and other FAMS training 

programs to the newly established office of training and workforce 

engagement under Mike Novak is an important step toward reaching that goal. 

FAMS training will remain an independent division under the 

Office of Training and Workforce Engagement continuing to serve 

our specific mission needs while TSA benefits from the professional 

experience of former FAMS executives like Mike Novak. 

Law enforcement is our essential function and this transformation will enhance FAMS’ ability to focus on what it does best, 

providing TSA with an agile responsive and professional law enforcement component that compliments the overall TSA mission. 

FAMS will streamline from five divisions to three: We will have 

the flight operations division; the security services and assessment 

division; and the field operations division. Remaining functions 

from the former administrative and technical services and training 

and workforce programs directorates will transfer to the appropriate TSA division, and some supporting elements will transfer to 

the FAMS business office. 

This model supports a field-centric approach allowing branch 

managers and staff to focus solely on the needs and management 

of the local field offices. 

This approach also provides the ability to consider field office 

consolidation issues within our concept of operations. This alignment will also contribute to correcting some issues noted in the report by the Office of Inspector General. The OIG investigated allegations of misconduct and illegal discrimination and retaliation in 

the FAMS, and the report found those allegations to be unfounded. 

The OIG did find, however, that the FAMS suffered from a lack of 

management cohesion, negative workforce perceptions, and a lack 

of compliance with headquarters’ direction in the matters of office 

operations and philosophy. Changing this management structure 

and reinvigorating the office of field operations addresses some of 

the OIG’s concerns by creating a foundation for a real, positive, cultural change to our workforce. 

We welcome the OIG review, and will continue working closely 

with them going forward. We realize there is work to be done as 

we continue to mature and advance our organization. We look forward to working with Congress and the OIG to ensure the agency’s 
6 

continuing improvement. Additionally, as the OIG report noted, 

these challenges have not and will not interfere with the mission 

of the FAMS. Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member Jackson Lee, we 

thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today, and look 

forward to answering your questions. 

[The joint prepared statement of Mr. Bray, Mr. Novak, and Mr. 

Allison follows:] 

JOINT PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT S. BRAY, MICHAEL NOVAK, AND RODERICK

J. ALLISON

FEBRUARY 16, 2012 

Good afternoon Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member Jackson Lee, and distinguished Members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify 

today about the Transportation Security Administration (TSA)—Office of Law Enforcement/Federal Air Marshal Service (OLE/FAMS) and how the changes we are 

implementing will help us achieve our mission to detect, deter, and defeat terrorist 

threats to the Nation’s transportation systems while streamlining our operations. 

I would like to take this opportunity to introduce the former Deputy Director of 

the FAMS, who is now TSA’s new Assistant Administrator, Mr. Mike Novak of the 

Office of Training and Workforce Engagement (TWE). Mr. Novak was also a former 

Assistant Director of Training for the FAMS at TSA. In addition, I would like to 

introduce Mr. Roderick Allison, who was recently named as the new Deputy Director of OLE/FAMS and who most recently served as our former Assistant Director 

for Flight Operations. 

The FAMS was officially transferred from the Federal Aviation Administration to 

TSA by the Aviation and Transportation Security Act. Over a 4-year period, the 

FAMS transitioned from TSA to the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS’s) 

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement component, and then back to TSA. It 

has been about 6 years since our reintegration with TSA. Today, Federal Air Marshals (FAMs) serve as the primary law enforcement officers within TSA and are deployed on both international and domestic flights. Last year, TSA signed 23 international agreements with foreign partners, including nine agreements permitting 

the deployment of FAMs on flights between the United States and the respective 

countries and 14 agreements on technical assistance and information sharing. Also 

of note in 2011, the Military Operations Research Society selected a University of 

Southern California (one of the DHS Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) Centers of Excellence partners) collaborative project with S&T and FAMS on randomizing Federal Air Marshals (FAMs) flight schedules for the prestigious Rist Award, 

the first non-Department of Defense winner in history. 

Today, OLE/FAMS serves DHS in a variety of critical roles. We are responsible 

for operating the Freedom Center, which contains the Transportation Security Operations Center (TSOC), the operational communications nexus for all of TSA, and the 

National Explosives Detection Canine Training Program (NEDCTP). We also manage the personnel security clearance process for TSA and conduct both Joint Vulnerability Assessments for airports as well as Man Portable Air Defense System 

(MANPADS) Vulnerability Assessments. 

In addition to our aviation security responsibilities, in conjunction with the Office 

of Security Operations, we administer the Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response Program (VIPR), which is aimed at enhancing the intermodal security response of our State and local transit partners. TSA has 25 multi-modal VIPR Teams 

working in transportation sectors across the country to prevent or disrupt potential 

terrorist planning activities, and the TSA appropriation for fiscal year 2012 includes 

funds for an additional 12 new VIPR Teams. 

Ten years after 9/11, our mission is no longer separate from TSA’s other transportation security missions. Today, our responsibilities make us a key component of 

TSA’s transportation security counterterrorism strategy. 

As you may know, TSA has recently undertaken an agency-wide transformation 

initiative. The OLE/FAMS part of the TSA transformation focuses specifically on 

transportation law enforcement services across TSA. The transformation plan has 

created a fully integrated OLE/FAMS, realigned into three operational divisions 

that support and enhance the TSA law enforcement mission. Under the plan some 

portion of non-mission elements such as financial and administrative services as 

well as technology management are transitioning to appropriate centralized TSA entities. This proposed structure will enable TSA to more efficiently and effectively 
7 

execute its day-to-day National security mission imperatives, establish a meaningful 

and realistic strategic vision for its law enforcement programs, and be flexible to address evolving threats to the Nation’s transportation systems. 

In order to achieve this vision, it’s crucial that TSA has a well-trained and highly 

motivated workforce. Transitioning the FAMS Training Center and other FAMS 

training programs to the TWE and leveraging the expertise of the men and women 

who train our FAMs are important steps towards that goal. 

Throughout this transition, we will continue to sustain the high level of FAMS 

training currently underway. FAMS training will remain an independent division 

under TWE, continuing to serve our mission needs, while TSA will benefit from the 

professional experience of former FAMS executives like Mr. Novak. 

OLE/FAMS STRUCTURE

Law enforcement is our essential function. The OLE/FAMS transformation will 

enhance FAMS’s ability to focus on what it does best—providing TSA with an agile, 

responsive, and dependable law enforcement component that complements the overall TSA mission. OLE/FAMS will streamline from five directorates to three divisions: The Flight Operations Division, the Security Services and Assessments Division (SSA), and the Field Operations Division (FLD). Remaining functions from the 

former Administrative and Technical Services and Training and Workforce Programs directorates will transfer to the appropriate TSA division and some supporting elements will transfer to the Business Management Office. 

Flight Operations Division 

The Flight Operations alignment will remain largely unchanged from its original 

function. It will maintain the management of FAMS daily deployment, 24/7 incident 

management, TSA’s emergency preparedness functions, the Federal Flight Deck Officer program and other associated programs. Training functions relating to those 

programs will migrate to TWE while the TSOC and FAMS Systems Operational 

Control functions will continue as part of Flight Operations. 

Security Services and Assessments Division 

SSA’s structure will also remain similar to the present composition, including the 

NEDCTP, MANPADS mitigation, airport vulnerability assessments, and physical 

security. However, some section-level functions will be transformed to permit greater attention to emerging mission areas. These include responsibility for TSA’s Insider Threat Section. The Insider Threat Section will enable TSA to better identify 

and mitigate risks posed by individuals with inside knowledge or access to the 

transportation system. 

Field Operations Division 

The FLD will align under four branches, three responsible for the oversight of a 

roughly equal number of Field Supervisory Air Marshals in Charge (SACs) and organized based on location. The fourth branch will manage all other field-related law 

enforcement programs, including those which will realign to OLE/FAMS from other 

TSA components. I am encouraged that this structure will enable us to better serve 

the men and women in the 25 field offices who protect us every day. 

In particular, the Law Enforcement Programs Branch will contain three sections—VIPR/Joint Coordination Center, Tactical Support, and Law Enforcement Information Coordination. The new Tactical Support Section is composed of operational elements which sustain Field Office operational functions. 

The Critical Incident Response Program (CIRP), which primarily serves OLE/ 

FAMS Field Operations, offers organization-wide support services in response to any 

critical incident such as line of duty exposure to traumatic events. CIRP provides 

assistance to OLE/FAMS employees and their families in times of personal or professional crisis and helps employees meet life’s challenges in an effort to remain 

healthy, engaged, and productive. This branch will also liaise and collaborate with 

TWE on delivery of OLE/FAMS-focused training products and oversee the provision/ 

compliance of FAMs’ recurrent training for headquarters operational personnel. 

The Law Enforcement Information Coordination Section (LECS), formerly known 

as the Information Coordination Division, has become more significant given its increasing TSA duties, particularly as it assumes the role of primary Federal Bureau 

of Investigation operational contact. 

The transformation of OLE/FAMS Field Office management is designed to be consistent with other TSA operational components and to permit future smooth transitions in the field. OLE/FAMS Field Office Branch Chiefs will align congruently with 

the Office of Security Operations’ (OSO) Regional Managers. This model will permit 
8 

closer coordination between senior OLE/FAMS and OSO managers, which is expected to improve TSA operational performance and professional collaboration. 

The model also enables OLE/FAMS to pursue a ‘‘field-centric’’ approach allowing 

branch managers and staff to focus solely on supporting the field, and the management of offices/SACs. Moreover, a field-centric approach will also provide the time 

and space to consider issues of field office consolidation and/or right-sizing congruent with the FAMS Concept of Operations or emerging law enforcement trends/ 

challenges. 

In addition, the realignment will contribute to correcting the internal challenges 

noted in a January 2012 report by DHS’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG), 

which investigated allegations of misconduct and illegal discrimination and retaliation in the FAMS. While the report found those allegations to be unfounded, the 

OIG did find that the FAMS suffered from a lack of management cohesion, negative 

workforce perceptions, and a lack of compliance with headquarters direction on matters of office operations and management philosophy. Changing the management 

structure and re-invigorating the focus of Field Operations addresses the OIG’s concerns by laying the foundation for real, positive cultural change to our workforce. 

We welcome the OIG review and have worked closely with them throughout this 

process. 

CONCLUSION

We believe the changes we are implementing will help strengthen our ability to 

provide comprehensive transportation security. They are designed to enable TSA to 

more efficiently and effectively execute our day-to-day operations and cultivate a 

strategic vision for our law enforcement programs while maximizing the flexibility 

needed to address unforeseen challenges and threats to the Nation’s transportation 

systems. 

Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member Jackson Lee, we thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. We look forward to answering your questions 

about the mission and operation of the Federal Air Marshal Service and the organizational changes that may result from the TSA transformation. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Bray, for your testimony. We appreciate you being here today, and we know your time is valuable. 

Our next witness, Mr. Charles Edwards, is the acting Inspector 

General of the Department of Homeland Security, and no stranger 

to this committee. I am glad to have you back. Mr. Edwards assumed this position in February 2011. Previously, he served as 

Deputy Inspector General for the Department of Homeland Security. Mr. Edwards has over 20 years of experience in the Federal 

Government, and has held leadership positions at several Federal 

agencies, including TSA, the U.S. Postal Service Office of Inspector 

General, and the United States Postal Service. The Chair now recognizes the famous Charles Edwards. 

STATEMENT OF CHARLES K. EDWARDS, ACTING INSPECTOR 

GENERAL, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. EDWARDS. Good afternoon, Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member Jackson Lee, and distinguished Members of the subcommittee. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify regarding allegations of 

misconduct, discrimination, and retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service, or FAMS. My office reviewed these allegations and 

published the results in a recent report titled ‘‘Allegations of Misconduct and Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal 

Air Marshal Service.’’ 

In early 2010, several Members of Congress reached out to my 

office requesting a review of FAMS after media reports surfaced regarding misconduct, illegal employment discrimination, and retaliation in the FAMS Orlando field office. Included within the media 

reports were descriptions of an agency rife with cronyism, age, gen-
9 

der, and racial discrimination; and unfair treatment in promotions, 

assignments, and discipline. In addition, there were troublesome 

photographs of a game board modeled after the television show 

Jeopardy. The game board was created and displayed by supervisors in the Orlando office, with categories using derogatory nicknames to refer to certain individuals’ race, gender, and sexual orientation. 

My office agreed to undertake an inspection to evaluate these allegations. Our goal was to determine whether the facts confirmed 

the specific allegations about the conditions in the FAMS Orlando 

field office, and whether the alleged conditions existed Nation-wide. 

As part of a review, we looked at applicable laws, regulations, directives, policies, and procedures. Furthermore, we conducted more 

than 300 interviews of officials, as well as current and former 

FAMS personnel. Additionally, we performed site visits to FAMS 

field offices, including Orlando, and reviewed internal FAMS 

records. 

With respect to the Jeopardy game board, this incident was isolated in the Orlando field office, and was not the source of allegations in other offices. All three individuals responsible for the game 

board’s creation are no longer with FAMS. Overall, we determined 

that although several employees experienced discrimination, a finding of wide-spread discrimination and retaliation within FAMS is 

not supported. Unfortunately, employees’ perceptions of discrimination, retaliation, and favoritism are extensive. During our inspection, we identified many factors that contributed to strained relations and were the basis of allegations of management misconduct. 

For example, due to the nature of the agency’s mission, FAMs have 

limited interaction with their supervisors. Evaluating FAMs based 

on such limited interaction is difficult, and may lead to disagreements. We noted inconsistency and the need for greater transparency and expediency in the agency’s handling of employee misconduct. 

We also found that discipline was perceived as unfair, inconsistently applied, and not at the appropriate severity level for the offense, and used for retaliatory purposes. Several other unclear 

operational and administrative FAMS policies lead to employees’ 

negative perceptions. As part of our inspection, we also conducted 

a survey of the FAMS workforce. Approximately 50 percent of the 

workforce responded. The survey results echoed what we observed 

during our site visits. One quarter of respondents feel that they 

have been discriminated against, 47 percent feel retaliation, and 55 

percent feel favoritism is tolerated. The survey also revealed that 

most, but not all, supervisors disagree with the non-supervisory 

Federal Air Marshals’ perception of these issues. 

As concerning as these issues are, they do not appear to have 

compromised the FAMS mission. Despite the concerns expressed in 

field offices, 76 percent of survey respondents either agreed or 

strongly agreed that the people they worked with cooperate to get 

the job done. Nonetheless, these allegations add unnecessary distraction at all levels at a time when mission tempo is high and 

many in the agency are becoming increasingly concerned about 

workforce burnout and fatigue. Thus, our report included 12 recommendations to help mitigate these issues. These include identi-
10 

fying other means to evaluate FAMS performance, clarifying and 

enhancing administration of the discipline process, enhancing guidance for ground-based assignments. We would like TSA to develop 

a strategy to address perceptions of discrimination, retaliation, and 

favoritism, as well as the workplace issues identified in our survey. 

While TSA and FAMS leadership are committed to addressing 

these issues, and have implemented several proactive initiatives, 

we will continue to work with TSA and the Department to identify 

ways to strengthen communication and increase transparency within the Federal Air Marshal Service. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks, and I would 

be happy to answer any questions that you or other members may 

have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Edwards follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHARLES K. EDWARDS

FEBRUARY 16, 2012 

Good afternoon Chairman Rogers, Congresswoman Jackson Lee and distinguished 

Members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on allegations of misconduct and illegal discrimination and retaliation in the Transportation 

Security Administration’s (TSA) Federal Air Marshal Service (FAMS). 

In January 2010, CNN reported allegations of misconduct and illegal employment 

discrimination and retaliation in the FAMS Orlando field office. The reports described an agency rife with cronyism; age, gender, and racial discrimination; and 

unfair treatment in promotions, assignments, and discipline. Also included were 

photographs of a game board modeled after the television show ‘‘Jeopardy!’’ created 

and displayed by supervisors there, with categories containing derogatory nicknames referring to veterans, females, African-Americans, Hispanics, and lesbians 

and gays. We reviewed the allegations in Orlando and throughout the agency as 

well as the circumstances surrounding the game board. 

In January 2012, we issued an inspection report, Allegations of Misconduct and 

Illegal Discrimination and Retaliation in the Federal Air Marshal Service (OIG–12– 

28). The purpose of our review was to evaluate allegations of misconduct and illegal 

discrimination and retaliation in FAMS. Our goal was to determine whether the 

facts confirmed the allegations in the FAMS Orlando field office and the extent to 

which the alleged conditions existed Nation-wide. We made 12 recommendations to 

help TSA mitigate the issues we identified, strengthen communication, and increase 

transparency. It is important to point out that that these issues do not appear to 

have compromised the FAMS mission. TSA and FAMS senior leadership are committed to addressing these issues and have implemented several proactive initiatives. 

Although individual employees may have experienced discrimination or retaliation, our review does not support a finding of widespread discrimination and retaliation within FAMS. However, employees’ perceptions of discrimination, retaliation, 

and favoritism are extensive, and we heard too many negative and conflicting accounts of events in certain locations to dismiss them. Tension and limited trust between non-supervisory and supervisory personnel, poor communication, and limited 

transparency are not only damaging morale, but also are at the center of fears of 

retaliation and perceptions that management is mistreating its workforce. 

Although we spent a great deal of time talking to non-supervisory Federal Air 

Marshals about their individual concerns or situations, we did not conduct investigations of their specific allegations against supervisors. Determining whether one 

employee retaliated or discriminated against another is a complex matter that may 

not be resolved until reviewed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 

the Merit Systems Protection Board, or a court of law. Beginning in the Orlando 

field office, we engaged FAMS employees at all levels and at multiple locations 

around the country to gain a better understanding of how the organization operates 

and obtain their insights into incidents that have fueled the allegations. One of our 

challenges was discerning the views of non-supervisory and supervisory Federal Air 

Marshals and FAMS’ senior leadership. 

We assessed the circumstances surrounding the game board styled after the television game show ‘‘Jeopardy!’’ and the FAMS Orlando field office’s response. The 

game board existed in Orlando only, and was not the source of allegations of retalia-
11 

tion and discrimination in other field offices. The game board was created by a Supervisory Federal Air Marshal, a Federal Air Marshal, and a civilian training officer 

in the training office. All three of these individuals have since left FAMS. A former 

Federal Air Marshal who photographed the game board while it hung in the training office did not show it to Members of Congress or the media until after FAMS 

removed him in December 2009. He said he drew a second game board, which contained more patently offensive categories, to help the Congressional staff better understand the original game board’s categories. Images of both game boards were distributed to several Federal Air Marshals in Orlando and Tampa. The recreated 

game board generated outrage, anger, and sadness. 

We asked personnel in the Orlando field office how management responded to the 

situation. The Supervisory Air Marshal in Charge (SAC) and the Assistant Supervisory Air Marshals in Charge held a series of briefings describing the game board 

as an improper, sophomoric joke by training staff. Accounts of managers’ attitudes 

while addressing the matter varied. Managers felt they had responded appropriately. Non-supervisory Federal Air Marshals recalled being disappointed by the 

briefings because managers came across as insensitive for not expressing accountability, contrition, or appropriate outrage. While we were conducting our site visit, 

FAMS leadership met with the Orlando SAC at headquarters. In July 2010, the Orlando field office underwent some personnel changes. These included the SAC being 

reassigned to a position in headquarters. In August 2010, Director Bray met with 

the entire Orlando field office to address workforce issues. In January 2011, the 

former Orlando SAC retired from FAMS. 

In the past several years, numerous workforce issues have undermined relationships between managers and Federal Air Marshals, created tension and mistrust 

within the work environment, and led to many complaints and allegations against 

managers. These issues spawned an ‘‘us versus them’’ mentality among non-managers, immediate managers, and senior managers. We noted different leadership 

styles and attitudes among managers and supervisors in the field offices we visited, 

but most acknowledged that relationships could be better and said they are trying 

to improve communication with the workforce to address these issues. At the same 

time, many Federal Air Marshals seemed unwilling or unable to adapt to changes 

or recognize that senior management has made efforts to address work-life issues 

brought to their attention. The inability of both supervisors and Federal Air Marshals to ‘‘let go’’ of past incidents that were previously addressed was a recurring 

theme during our review. 

We identified other numerous factors that contributed to strained relations and 

became the basis for many allegations of management misconduct. Due to the nature of the agency’s mission, Federal Air Marshals have limited interaction with 

their supervisors. Evaluating Federal Air Marshals based on such limited interaction is difficult and may lead to disagreements. We noted inconsistency and the 

need for greater transparency and expediency in the agency’s handling of employee 

misconduct. Discipline was perceived as unfair, inconsistently applied, not at the appropriate severity level for the offense, and as being used for retaliatory purposes. 

Everyone agreed the process takes too long. In addition, several other operational 

and administrative aspects of FAMS, such as how it administers ground-based assignments, promotions, and restriction from flying international missions, need 

more clarity. 

We also conducted a survey of the FAMS workforce. Approximately 50% of the 

workforce completed the survey. The survey results echoed what we observed during 

our site visits. One-quarter of respondents feel they have been discriminated 

against, 47% of respondents fear retaliation, and 55% believe favoritism is tolerated. 

The survey also revealed that most, but not all, supervisors disagree with non-supervisory Federal Air Marshals’ perceptions of these issues. Negative perceptions 

are also prevalent regarding discipline and favoritism, even among managers and 

respondents who do not believe they are victims of discrimination, retaliation, or unfavorable treatment. Employees who fear retaliation are also less likely to report 

misconduct or illegal activity. 

These issues do not appear to have compromised the FAMS mission. Despite the 

concerns expressed in field offices, 76% of survey respondents either agreed or 

strongly agreed that the people they work with cooperate to get the job done. However, these allegations add unnecessary distraction at all levels at a time when mission tempo is high and many in the agency are becoming increasingly concerned 

about workforce burnout and fatigue. 

Management has been addressing workforce issues for several years, and continues to address them. Initiatives include the creation of the SAC Advisory Council, 

FAMS Advisory Council, and several working groups. In addition, all-hands meetings were held to discuss and identify workplace issues, develop recommended 
12 

courses of action, and designate committees to plan for implementation of the 

agreed course of action based on operational requirements. These initiatives have 

provided useful forums for increasing communication and collaboration between senior leadership and the workforce, particularly the field offices, and addressing workplace issues. To promote a common culture within FAMS and address the ‘‘us versus 

them’’ perceptions, the Director accepted and implemented many of the FAMS Advisory Council’s recommendations. In addition, the Director met with headquarters 

personnel to discuss changing the cultural mindset at all levels of the organization 

from one of a top-down management structure to one of solving problems for Federal 

Air Marshals who protect flights worldwide every day. 

The report contained 12 recommendations aimed at strengthening communication, 

increasing transparency, and mitigating the issues identified in our review. TSA 

concurred with the recommendations. We recommended that TSA: • identify other means to obtain information on Federal Air Marshals’ performance that could assist supervisors when preparing evaluations; • provide guidance regarding the types of incidents FAMS should and should not 

report to the Office of Inspection in an incident tracking report; • provide additional guidance and clarification regarding employee ineligibility for 

favorable personnel actions when there is a pending disciplinary matter that 

spans performance cycles; • provide guidance and clarification regarding how long prior corrective or discipline actions should be considered and for which types of incidents; 

• develop a comprehensive system to track all stages of the discipline process; 

• establish additional guidelines that set forth selection criteria for Federal Air 

Marshal ground-based positions; 

• provide additional guidance and clarification for awards and in-position increases, including whether they can be rotated among staff and given to the 

same employee in back-to-back years, and to what extent managers should consider discipline issues; 

• evaluate whether FAMS should remove specific limits on the number of Senior 

Federal Air Marshals allowed in each office and establish eligibility criteria for 

designation as a Senior Federal Air Marshal based on specific mission and 

length-of-service achievements, in addition to the performance requirements already in place; 

• communicate specific application criteria to all J-band promotion applicants at 

the beginning of each promotion cycle; 

• review evaluation and assessment procedures for the J-band promotion process 

and revise as necessary to ensure that certification lists contain the best qualified candidates; 

• develop guidelines to define when Federal Air Marshals can be removed from 

international flight schedules, including what performance and conduct issues 

can cause a Federal Air Marshal to be removed and the duration of the restriction; and 

• create and implement an action plan to address workplace issues identified in 

our survey. 

The Office of Inspector General looks forward to continuing to work with the Department to identify ways to strengthen communication and increase transparency 

through our audit and inspection work. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. Thank you for the opportunity to testify and I welcome any questions from you or Members of the subcommittee. 

Mr. ROGERS. Great. I thank you. The Chair now recognizes himself for questions. I want to start, Mr. Bray, you know, everybody 

knows what the economic situation in this country is right now, 

and particularly the economic situation of this Government. We are 

broke. I was frankly pleased to see the budget number that the 

President tendered for Homeland overall, because it wasn’t as bad 

as it could have been, and it wasn’t nearly as bad as what we are 

dealing with in the Armed Services. I serve on the House Armed 

Services Committee. So thankful for what we have got. But having 

said that, we still have the reality of budgets being tight for a 

while. 

So in thinking forward about what we are going to be dealing 

with, I look at your organization, and you are right at $1 billion 
13 

* The information was retained in committee files. 

right now. That is a huge amount of money. Can you point to one 

or two things that you are proud of that have been cost-saving 

measures that you have taken recently, let’s say, in the last year? 

Mr. BRAY. Sir, I think we have many cost-saving measures I can 

point to. The ones that I speak about are associated with many different things that we look at throughout the years as being more 

efficient and trying to provide as effective a layer of security that 

we can. We always work, we have all of our employees—the vast 

majority of our costs when we travel is for the cost of the hotels. 

So we work with both the GSA and our own people to try to 

bring down those costs. We are always studying the costs of the hotels when our people have to stay overnight or when they travel 

overseas. Obviously, a significant portion of our costs involve when 

we travel overseas. So we focus on that on a very regular basis. I 

have weekly meetings with our budget staff to look at our costs. If 

you look at the model that we have for our organization, and you 

go to our field offices, we have a different model for our field offices 

as far as the overhead costs. Where we had one central training facility in each field office, we have decentralized training for our 

field offices. We have very few offices. We use the hoteling concept, 

where people share a cubicle—because obviously our FAMs, their 

job is to be in the air, not to be in the office except for on a very 

regular basis when they are training, or when they are in there for 

certain other administrative duties, or to meet with their supervisors on that infrequent basis when they are able to do that. So 

we try to save costs there. We are always looking for other ways 

to save costs. 

Mr. ROGERS. What I would like to ask you, I know the President 

has asked you all to come up with proposals to cut your budget by 

a certain number next year or maybe the year after, I would like 

to ask that you provide for the committee a proposal that would 

show us—I know that my friend and colleague over here wants to 

give you a whole lot more people, and I may go along with her on 

that. I haven’t decided. But just for our edification and to help us 

prepare for what may come. You know, next year, we may be the 

Defense Department, where we are being told to take a big hit. I 

would like for you all to tender a proposal to this committee showing that if you had to reduce 5 percent of your budget each year 

for the next 5 years, this is what you have to give up. It would just 

force you to prioritize and say now we are doing this, we think it 

is important, we want to keep doing it, but if you take 5 percent 

of the money away, this is what is going to drop off. 

If you would do that for me, I would appreciate it. Can you tell 

me what kind of time frame would be reasonable? Because I don’t 

want to put too much on you. Everybody is looking at each other: 

Who is going to do this? 

Mr. BRAY. Sir, if it is agreeable with you, how about 30 days? 

That would give us time to go through it.* 

Mr. ROGERS. That is fine. That is very fine. I appreciate that. As 

I talked about in my opening statement, the threat has changed 

significantly since 9/11 because terrorists have modified their tactics based on security measures we have put in place. To the extent 
14 

that you can discuss this in an opening setting, what is FAMS 

doing to adapt to the evolving threat to stay ahead of the terrorists? For example, are air marshals prepared to deal with the 

threat of an IED? I will take that, Mr. Allison or Novak, whichever 

one of you all. 

Mr. NOVAK. I will take that. Yeah, that is something that we 

train for. So the way the training academy works is we train to 

general tenets, if you will, principles about how to conduct themselves on a plane. So you can take that from anything from an unruly passenger all the way up to an IED, if you will, on a passenger, or someone trying to take over the plane. So we do train 

to those things. 

Mr. ROGERS. So what would you do if you had a suspected bomber on the plane? Let’s say the Christmas day bomber, somebody 

tipped off to you they saw him going into the restroom and he had 

an explosive in his hand, whatever. Can you talk about that in 

open session? 

Mr. NOVAK. Not really. We don’t like to discuss tactics. But we 

do have those scenarios, those very scenarios that you talk about. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you. My time has expired. The Chair now 

recognizes the Ranking Member for any questions she may have. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think, 

if you could, tell me what the President’s budget, Mr. Bray, has 

submitted for your agency? What are the cuts from 2012, fiscal 

year 2012? 

Mr. BRAY. For 2012 the proposal from the President is—for 2011 we received $927 million. The proposal is $966 million for 2012. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. What did you receive in 2011? I didn’t hear 

you. What did you receive? 

Mr. BRAY. Our enacted appropriation in 2011 was $927 million. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Okay. You are now at? 

Mr. BRAY. Nine hundred sixty-six million. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Okay. So you went up, if I am hearing your 

numbers correctly. 

Mr. BRAY. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Do you foresee—I think we can generally ask 

you for the numbers—do you foresee cuts in FAMs, working FAMs 

besides management? 

Mr. BRAY. I think we would, yes, ma’am. Under the current proposal. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I am not asking for any numbers. Let me 

move to the points that I made in my opening remarks. I think in 

2009, you testified regarding two initiatives that were going to be 

implemented in fiscal year 2010 with the goal of improving FAMS 

workforce issues and morale. You called one program the FAM 

mentoring program, and you also referenced a promotion restructure as the Senior Federal Air Marshal title change across FAMS. 

Now, again our IG points to low workforce morale stemming from 

the Senior Federal Air Marshal program, as I can recollect from his 

testimony and report. Can you brief me as to why you believe this 

program seemingly has had an opposite effect, this introduction of 

the Senior Federal Air Marshal program? 

Mr. BRAY. The purpose of the Senior Federal Air Marshal program is to recognize those flying FAMs who have served for a cer-
15 

tain period of time and they have served well. It is a recognition 

of their effort and dedication and professionalism towards our Nation. There is no monetary sums to that. There is no other sums 

for promotion or anything else. It is just a recognition of their service. So we have a certain percentage of FAMs that are eligible for 

that. We are reviewing that. We have a FAM Advisory Council that 

has made some recommendations to us. We have worked with our 

supervisory advisory council. I believe in the very near future, we 

are going to make some changes to that program that I think are 

based on the recommendations from the FAM Advisory Council. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Does it also take into consideration the comments made or the report made by the Inspector General? 

Mr. BRAY. Yes, it does. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me ask the Inspector General, you indicate in your testimony that you didn’t seem to find the widespread 

discrimination and retaliation supported. Explain that to me. What 

methods did you use to determine that they were not supported? 

We are still getting emails indicating that people are still seemingly treated in a disparate manner. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, ma’am. We visited five sites. We conducted interviews from everybody who wanted to talk to us, either 

at the office or at an off-site. We also did a survey where 50 percent of FAMs from all demographics responded to the survey. The 

perception of discrimination was widely there. But when we looked 

at it, when we went out to do this inspection, we did not want to 

address individual complaints because there is a process for that. 

There is the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the 

MSPB, and also court of law. 

So a lot of these were already in litigation. So we looked to see, 

there was so much distrust between supervisory Federal Air Marshals and non-supervisory air marshals. However, we did not find 

a widespread discrimination. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Which one of your recommendations points to 

trying to cure that problem? 

Mr. EDWARDS. If you look at recommendations 2 and 4—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Of the 12? 

Mr. EDWARDS. And 12? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. No, I said of the 12? 

Mr. EDWARDS. Of the 12, 2 and 4 talks about the discipline process. And 10 talks about the promotion. People feel that there is not 

a fair process there. Then 12 we talk about an action plan for the 

survey. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So you are suggesting this is what needs to 

be done, what needs to be implemented? 

Mr. EDWARDS. Right away, yes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Have you had any response back on your report from the agency? 

Mr. EDWARDS. Yes. They concurred. Recommendation 9 is already closed even before our report could be issued. So they are 

working with us. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. In your report, you include charts that isolate 

various workplace issues by office. One in particular happens to fall 

in the State of Texas. It seems that the Dallas office leads for 

workplace problems. Would it be possible for your office do an in- 
16 

depth review of the Dallas office to determine what is going on in 

that office? If that was occurring in one or two other offices, which 

has come to our attention, would that be possible? 

Mr. EDWARDS. It is possible. But however, ma’am, I would like 

to point out that we spent nearly 11⁄2 weeks in Dallas field office. 

We interviewed around 60 personnel, including managers, supervisors, and FAMs. We collected a lot of survey data. So we believe 

since we need to give time for FAMS leadership and for the recommendations to work its way through. I will be glad to look at 

the Dallas field office. Also they have new leadership there. So we 

want to give some time for that. Even the five sites we picked up, 

we looked at the MSPB data to see where the most complaints 

were. Of course, Dallas was one of them. But I feel that we need 

give some time for this recommendation to take effect. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me close by, since I have a lot on this particular issue, let me ask, Mr. Bray—thank you very much, Mr. 

Edwards—I am looking at your diversity, I am looking at the participation of women. I see some progress has been made in the 

number of women working in FAMS. A lot of work remains to be 

done, particularly when it comes to the SES positions. For instance, there are only four women serving in SES positions. What 

I would just want to hear from you, Mr. Bray, is your outreach in 

recruiting women and minorities. Also in my H.R. 71, I talk about 

criminal investigative training, and how that would—how would 

you welcome that kind of training coming to FAMS? 

Mr. BRAY. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to that. We 

have a very strong outreach to the diversity groups that we work 

with, whether it is the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement, the Women in Federal Law Enforcement. I would just 

like to say that the current active president for Women in Federal 

Law Enforcement is a Federal Air Marshal. We also work with 

them on diversity in recruiting. As I said, we have a very strong 

program to attend the conferences every year. I try to attend at 

least two or three conferences every year. 

We have senior leadership at every conference to put forth the 

word that we want to hire a diverse workforce and to maintain 

that workforce. As far as the criminal investigator training program, I believe it is essential that we continue to look at our training. As we see terrorism evolve, as we see them adapt and evolve, 

we—and I, it is incumbent upon me to make sure that my employees have the most forward-thinking and advanced training they 

can get as far as being able to respond. We all know that when 

FAMs are in the air, there is no chance of backup for them. So it 

is incumbent upon me to make sure they have the most advanced 

training we can. We work with Federal Law Enforcement Training 

Center on some of those initiatives. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ROGERS. I thank the gentlelady. The Chair now recognizes 

the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Cravaack, for any questions he 

may have. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Bray, thank you 

for your testimony today. One of the things, as a Federal Flight 

Deck Officer and an airline pilot for 17 years, one of the things that 

we learned after 9/11, you can’t have a single point security check. 
17 

It is a layered approach. It takes a lot of people to make sure that 

from when you initially buy your ticket to when you enter the aircraft there is all types of layers of security. In regards to, and I will 

try to say this very gently, yesterday we had Secretary Napolitano 

here, and she said the last line of defense was the cockpit door. In 

view of the layered security, how would you go about with the Secretary’s comment? Would you like to redefine her remarks? 

Mr. BRAY. I think I would like to say that—— 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Or do you want to take a pass? Feel free. 

Mr. BRAY. I think what I would say is I think it is very important that all the layers of security are strong and vibrant. I think 

as far as the FFDO program, they are an important layer of our 

security. I personally appreciate all the work and professionalism 

and dedication they have, and all the time they volunteer to help 

us in our very important role in aviation security. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Did the Secretary ask you at all in regards to the 

budgetary cuts for FFDOs? Were you involved in that at all? 

Mr. BRAY. We do have discussions. I had discussions through my 

chain of command about that, yes, sir. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Okay. Can you give us an idea of who decided to 

cut the FFD program in half, basically? 

Mr. BRAY. I don’t have personal knowledge on that. But as was 

referred to earlier, we all have to make some very challenging decisions in the current economic climate and going forward. So we always make decisions based on the risk base and the intelligence 

that we receive. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Sure. I understand risk-based. I understand that 

correctly. But I am assuming, and we won’t talk numbers, but I am 

assuming that the numbers in regards to the budget, the number 

of FAMs are going to stay relatively the same. Would that be a correct statement or an incorrect statement? 

Mr. BRAY. I think that is generally correct. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Okay. A generally correct statement. Now, cutting the program in half, we have what, 29,000 flights a day I 

think, cutting that program in half with the same amount of 

FAMs, but basically cutting the program for FFDOs in half, that 

is going to leave a lot of open sky, in my opinion. I am just very 

concerned on especially one of the most efficient programs that I 

can see in the Federal Government. I think it costs $15 for every 

flight to have an FFDO on in comparison to other flights. 

For example, FFDOs take their personal days off for training. 

They pay for their own lodging. They pay to go to training. I think 

it is one of the most efficient programs that we have, and provides 

one of the most essential last-ditch efforts. Plus, it is an extremely 

covert program. You are not going to be able to tell if there is an 

FFDO in that cockpit or not. It is one of the chief deterrents that 

I can see. They are seamless with the FAMs. The majority of people don’t know FAMs are on board as well. It is very disconcerting 

to me to see that this program was cut in half. Quite frankly, it 

is peanuts in the overall spectrum of things, $23 million, they cut 

it down to $12 million. 

I think the other questions that I would have would probably be 

best suited for a more secure environment. But I just wanted to get 
18 

your comments on do you think that with a cut in the program, the 

FFDOs right now, do you think it would affect our security overall? 

Mr. BRAY. We are still examining the proposals. But what we 

hope to do with the proposed cuts is to really look at the overhead 

that we have in the program as far as some of the training support 

contracts we have and the requalification areas. We hope to look 

at some of the overhead we have within our program as far as the 

number of training sites, to cut that possibly, to really try do what 

we can to minimize the impact on the flying FFDOs. So we are 

looking at that first. So I would like to defer any further comment 

on that until we really study it. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Unfortunately, as I understand it, there hasn’t 

been any new FFDOs in the program for what, over a year now? 

Would that be a correct statement? They have not had a training 

class for over a year for new FFDOs. 

Mr. ALLISON. Mr. Congressman, I believe we were scheduled to 

have 200 or so FFDOs this year. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. How many? 

Mr. ALLISON. Two hundred or so. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Two hundred? Okay. That would be new information for me then. Thank you very much. My time has expired. I will 

yield back negative time. 

Mr. ROGERS. I thank the gentleman. I have just got a couple of 

more questions before we go into secure session. This is for Mr. 

Bray. As a result of TSA’s transformation initiative, I understand 

that law enforcement officials had their titles changed from regional directors to branch managers, which is a title more common 

for a bank or an insurance company or whatever. You know, these 

are high-performing law enforcement, well-trained personnel. We 

have heard about the morale problems. Is this something you have 

been getting feedback on about this title? No problem at all? 

Mr. BRAY. Sir, Mr. Chairman, I would respond to that by a couple years ago, based on some advice that—I guess it is about a year 

and a half ago now—based on advice from our FAM Advisory 

Council, I started changing the titles for some of our supervisors. 

Previously, they used to be called special agents in charge. That I 

think caused a gulf between the Federal Air Marshals and the supervisors. So now when I introduced the Supervisory Federal Air 

Marshals from Orlando and Dallas, they are now called Supervisory Federal Air Marshals. So we have been undertaking that initiative, that transformation for a while as far as changing of titles. 

I have not heard any feedback that that has affected anyone’s morale in the leadership or in the organization. 

Mr. ROGERS. Good. We have heard significant concern about the 

decision to merge FAMS training with the training of Transportation Security Officers, TSOs. The responsibilities of these two 

groups are very different. Notably, air marshals are law enforcement officials, whereas TSOs, who conduct passenger screening, 

are not law enforcement. What is your view on the decision to 

merge TSA’s training programs, thereby shutting down separate 

FAMS’ training operation? I guess that would be Mr. Novak? 

Mr. NOVAK. Yeah, I would be happy to talk about that. So what 

you are saying is correct. But when you look at it, there is actually 

a separate law enforcement division and a separate Transportation 
19 

Security Officer division. So the training won’t actually be the 

same. 

Mr. ROGERS. The same training. 

Mr. NOVAK. Yeah. So the FAMS training center in Atlantic City 

will remain as such, and the FAMS will go there for their training. 

So nothing really will impact the way we train FAMS. 

Mr. ROGERS. Okay. So you don’t see that training suffering any? 

Mr. NOVAK. I don’t. 

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Novak, you are the first person to assume the 

role of assistant administrator for the newly created Office of 

Training and Workforce Engagement. Why was the decision made 

to establish the new office? 

Mr. NOVAK. So, what I think when Mr. Pistole came in as the 

administrator from his previous time at the FBI, he looked at the 

organization, and there were actually training departments in different sections of the organization. It just brought out the obvious 

question, why would there be training departments in other programs? So effective, efficient, here we are about efficiency, is it better suited to move things together and combine forces? 

Mr. ROGERS. So what are your responsibilities? 

Mr. NOVAK. My responsibilities are coordinating all the training 

that happens throughout the organization. So consolidating all 

those folks to make sure the messaging is the same—the training 

tactics are different, but the messaging for the organization is the 

same, and making sure—okay. 

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Edwards, you talked a little while ago about 

widespread perception problems. Even though your investigation 

didn’t find the problems that were alleged, you said that there were 

extensive perception problems. Why do you think that is? 

Mr. EDWARDS. Well, based on the interviews, Chairman, and the 

survey responses, there is a perception because the non-supervisory 

FAMs and the supervisory FAMs, they don’t trust each other. 

There is also a perception that senior leadership doesn’t hold supervisory FAMs accountable. So there is so much of mistrust. In 

terms of getting awards, there is no common criteria. Every office 

kind of determines it differently. When so little time is spent of a 

flying FAM with their supervisor, how are they going to measure 

their performance? 

So we recommend that TSA provide guidance on awards and promotions, even promoting getting promoted to a supervisory FAM. 

There needs to be transparency in the application process. You 

know, there should be some criteria. So we have made a number 

of changes, and FAMS leadership and TSA have accepted that. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes 

the Ranking Member for any additional questions she may have. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Chairman, your line of questioning raises several questions. Mr. Novak, the role that you play deals with training for all of the TSO personnel, including TSO officers? 

Mr. NOVAK. That is correct. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So you coordinate for everyone, including 

FAMS? 

Mr. NOVAK. Correct. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. You have obviously structured training that 

differs from TSO officers to FAM officers. Is that correct? 
20 

Mr. NOVAK. Correct. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. In your training, are supervisors involved in 

the training? 

Mr. NOVAK. It is funny you mentioned that. I am actually preparing a course for supervisory TSOs. There is supervisory training 

right now. But one of the things that I have heard has been that 

our supervisor training for TSOs could be better. So I have looked 

at it. I just came into existence January 1 of this year. But I have 

had a meeting yesterday for 2 hours with the group that is reviewing all that. I am going to release something in the next couple 

months that will be a 2-week program that will hopefully give 

them the fundamentals that they need. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So for FAMS, do you include FAM supervisors 

in as well as the FAM officers for training? 

Mr. NOVAK. Yes. There is a supervisory course that we introduced probably a year-and-a-half ago for FAM supervisors. It 

touches on a lot of the same things that I am going to incorporate 

into the TSO training. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I think you have a wide purview. So how are 

you going to really answer the question? I probably disagree with 

my very fine Inspector General. I think the report on its face is a 

very good report. But you cannot have perception, widespread perception without reality. Somebody is feeling, and there is the reality of discrimination or lack of communication between supervisors and the line officers. What are you going to do about that? 

Mr. NOVAK. So I will—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Because you are in the training and professional development. 

Mr. NOVAK. That is right. So I can offer more training. But what 

we have done is, as I mentioned earlier, this supervisor course that 

Director Bray implemented is really a great start. Now, that was 

implemented while the Inspector General was doing their review. 

So I think we are turning the tide. We are talking about having 

our folks make sure that our FAMs succeed. We are giving them 

every opportunity to succeed. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. What did you say Mr. Bray had that you 

thought was working? 

Mr. NOVAK. We introduced a supervisory training course. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Is that talking to them about communicating 

and working with the line officers? So what is your mode for assessment? What is your audit to determine that it works? 

Mr. NOVAK. Well, that will be surveys like this in the future. But 

there is an assessment actually that the supervisors take to review 

what they think their skills are. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Can I ask you then to be part of—obviously, 

I don’t run your shop, but can I have you see the connection? If you 

are training and trying to break through on some of the issues that 

Mr. Edwards has commented on, you need to see whether your 

training is working, whether people are learning to work together, 

whether there are barriers, or the walls of discrimination that are 

perceived through your training can be broken down. 

Mr. NOVAK. That is true. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So I would like to, as I said, the Chairman 

has given you a request, I note it was 30 days, but I would like 
21 

to get a report back on what impact or what are the results of the 

training on one of the major elements of the Inspector General’s report, and whether or not you are crafting training to improve the 

diversity relationships. Whether or not you have training that allows or says supervisors can supervise people from all backgrounds. 

Which is obviously you can put it in the terms of the structure of 

your training. I would like that report back. 

Mr. NOVAK. Very well. Thank you. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Allison, you are under law enforcement. 

Would criminal investigation training be helpful to your FAMs? 

Mr. ALLISON. Yes, Ms. Jackson Lee, I believe it is, or would be. 

I was actually hired as a Federal Air Marshal back in 1998 out of 

the military. I actually attended the criminal investigator training 

program. There are a number of lesson plans and training attributes there that we believe would be beneficial to our workforce. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. What is your perception of the need for breaking what people perceive to be discriminatory treatment? 

Mr. ALLISON. I actually think what Mr. Edwards outlined is right 

on the money. Clearly, we need to improve our sense of team as 

an organization. The way we operate and the infrequency of contact between the management and the FAMS that are flying, it is 

just human nature that unfamiliarity breeds mistrust. So we certainly need to bridge the divide where it comes to the communication aspects. We need to invoke and mandate more transparency 

on our policies and procedures with respect to the issues that are 

on the minds of the flying Federal Air Marshals. Also more consistency in our field offices. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Are you recruiting—where are you mostly recruiting your officers from? Are they retired Federal law enforcement, or do they come from—are you going out in the field and 

finding—not to reflect on anyone that is retired, but are you looking in other places, colleges, for example? 

Mr. ALLISON. Yes, ma’am. I actually, a while back, did a recruiting trip at some HBCUs a number of years ago. But we have representatives across the offices in the field who are recruiters. They 

go to colleges. They make all folks aware of the announcements 

when they come out for the vacancies for the Federal Air Marshals. 

We also work very closely with the different law enforcement 

groups to actively recruit and give people experiences and sort of 

a look inside the organization to offer that as a venue for employment. I actually championed an effort recently with NOBLE for 

summer internship positions. They give opportunities for those who 

may not would have had them. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask unanimous 

consent—thank you very much, Mr. Allison—to submit the Ranking Member of the full committee, Mr. Bennie G. Thompson’s statement into the record. 

Mr. ROGERS. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The statement of Mr. Thompson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER BENNIE G. THOMPSON

FEBRUARY 16, 2012 

In July 2009, this committee’s Subcommittee on Management, Investigation, and 

Oversight held a hearing on FAMS personnel issues. Director Bray was a witness 
22 

* The information was not submitted at the time of publication. 

at that hearing and will appear before this subcommittee today. At that hearing in 

2009, Director Bray acknowledged that retaliation had been an on-going problem 

across FAMS. Director Bray promised to fix this problem. Clearly, no remedial action was taken. 

Today, 47% of FAMS believe that retaliation is part and parcel of the FAMS 

workplace. I am not a management expert. But I know that if half of your workforce 

will admit to believing something, the other half believe it but won’t admit to it. 

So as we begin today’s hearing, I need to focus on the practical ramifications of having 47% of your workforce believe that retaliation is a way of life. 

In the most recent report released by the Inspector General, he noted that many 

discrimination complaints had been filed. However, he also noted that the overwhelming majority of those complaints had been resolved in favor of the agency. 

I have no doubt that the Director and others will testify that these favorable resolutions mean that the agency is free of discrimination. Luckily, I was not born yesterday. I know that in order to win a discrimination complaint, there must be evidence and there must be witnesses. 

That gets me back to the 47% who fear retaliation. In an agency in which almost 

half of the employees fear retaliation, few will speak up. Few will testify. So few 

cases will be won by employees. Given these practical considerations, I do not believe that anyone should make proud assertions about a lack of discrimination at 

FAMS. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to be very clear. The flying FAMS have an exemplary record of protecting the flying public. But I must admit that it may be miraculous that their job performance has not been adversely affected by the dysfunctional 

environment of the FAMS field offices. 

So today, I want to take a moment to commend each flying FAM for the work 

they do. But we cannot continue to take this work for granted. How much longer 

are we willing to risk that the well-documented dysfunction of these offices does not 

affect the performance of the flying FAMS? As Members of this committee, we need 

to take a long and hard look at this agency and make leadership changes that will 

preserve and protect the safety of the flying public. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I have likewise a question that I would like 

to submit into the record and ask, it will be of Mr. Bray, and I 

would specifically like a sooner rather than later, like an immediate response. It deals with the issue of FAMS and the hiring of 

numerous U.S. Secret Service retirees and their annuity. So it is 

a detailed question. I think it is appropriate for a detailed response. I ask unanimous consent to submit the question into the 

record in writing, but also to ask for an expeditious response, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. ROGERS. Without objection, so ordered.* 

Thank the gentlelady. Mr. Allison, I am glad to hear you all are 

doing that. By the way, I have three HBCUs in my district. If you 

want to send some recruiters down to Talladega, Tuskegee, or Alabama State, I would appreciate it. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. You would do well to do so. Come on down to 

Texas Southern University. 

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Cravaack, do you have one more question before we go to closed session? 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Yeah. If you don’t mind, I would like to follow up. 

Minnesota, good central work ethic. I just want to let you know 

about those guys too. I had a question. It was alluded to, Mr. Allison kind of, was the discrimination basically between the front line 

troops and supervisory? Is that where I am seeing—or not discrimination, but distrust? Is that what we are seeing or—— 

Mr. ALLISON. Yes, Mr. Congressman. The Federal Air Marshals 

who are in the field offices flying the missions every day, and then 
23 

the first-line supervisors who are the—principally, the first-line supervisors. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. I can understand that, because, you know, usually FAMS are haze gray and underway. I mean, they are gone 

constantly. They have to introduce themselves to their family every 

now and then. So, you know, they have about as many flight hours 

as a pilot. I understand that. So I think I heard that. So it is from 

the front-line troops, the distrust from front-line troops basically to 

the head shed. 

Mr. ALLISON. To some degree, yes, sir. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Okay. Great. Thank you. I appreciate that. I 

yield back. 

Mr. ROGERS. I thank the gentleman. In discussion with our witnesses, we have agreed that the remainder of this discussion is 

very sensitive in nature. The information to be discussed, if it were 

disclosed, could endanger National security or compromise sensitive law enforcement information. Therefore, I consulted with the 

Ranking Member, and we are in agreement that the remainder of 

today’s hearing should be conducted in closed, classified session. 

Pursuant to rule 11 clause 2(g)2 of the U.S. House of Representatives, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the hearing 

be closed to the public. Hearing no objection, we will now recess 

and go down to the SCIF. By the way, I have a hard stop at 4 

o’clock. So if we could walk quickly, I would appreciate it. 

[Whereupon, at 3:20 p.m., the subcommittee proceeded in closed 

session.] 

Æ