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

81–243 PDF 2013

SEQUESTRATION OVERSIGHT: PRIORITIZING 

SECURITY OVER ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS AT TSA 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

APRIL 18, 2013 

Serial No. 113–22 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

http://www.house.gov/reform 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan 

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

DOC HASTINGS, Washington 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

KERRY L. BENTIVOLIO, Michigan 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

JACKIE SPEIER, California 

MATTHEW A. CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania 

MARK POCAN, Wisconsin 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois 

TONY CARDENAS, California 

STEVEN A. HORSFORD, Nevada 

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico 

LAWRENCE J. BRADY, Staff Director 

JOHN D. CUADERES, Deputy Staff Director 

ROBERT BORDEN, General Counsel 

LINDA A. GOOD, Chief Clerk 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah, Chairman 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan 

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

KERRY L. BENTIVOLIO, Michigan 

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts Ranking 

Minority Member 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

JACKIE SPEIER, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on April 18, 2013 .............................................................................. 1 

WITNESS 

Mr. John W. Halinski, Deputy Administrator, Transportation Security Administration, U.S. Department Homeland Security 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 9 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 11 

(1) 

SEQUESTRATION OVERSIGHT: PRIORITIZING 

SECURITY OVER ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS 

AT TSA 

Thursday, April 18, 2013, 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m. in room 

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, the Hon. Jason Chaffetz 

[chairman of the subcommittee], presiding. 

Present: Representatives Chaffetz, Mica, Issa, Gowdy, Speier and 

Cummings. 

Staff Present: Alexia Ardolina, Majority Assistant Clerk; Molly 

Boyl, Majority Parliamentarian; Daniel Bucheli, Majority Assistant 

Clerk; Caitlin Carroll, Majority Deputy Press Secretary; John 

Cuaderes, Majority Deputy Staff Director; Adam P. Fromm, Majority Director of Member Services and Committee Operations; Linda 

Good, Majority Chief Clerk; Michael R. Kiko, Majority Staff Assistant; Mitchell S. Kominsky, Majority Counsel; Mark D. Marin, Majority Director of Oversight; Scott Schmidt, Majority Deputy Director of Digital Strategy; Rebecca Watkins, Majority Deputy Director 

of Communications; Jaron Bourke, Minority Director of Administration; Devon Hill, Minority Research Assistant; Chris Knauer, 

Minority Senior Investigator; Rory Sheehan, Minority New Media 

Press Secretary; Cecelia Thomas, Minority Counsel. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Good morning. The committee will come to order. 

I would like to begin this hearing by stating the Oversight Committee mission statement. We exist to secure two fundamental 

principles. First, Americans have a right to know the money Washington takes from them is well spent; and second, Americans deserve an efficient, effective government that works for them. Our 

duty on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee is to 

protect these rights. 

Our solemn responsibility is to hold government accountable to 

taxpayers, because taxpayers have a right to know what they get 

from their government. We will work tirelessly in partnership with 

citizen watchdogs to deliver the facts to the American people and 

bring genuine reform to the Federal bureaucracy. This is the mission of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. 

First, I would like to take a moment to express our deepest condolences to the victims and families of the Boston Marathon attacks and certainly what is happening at this time in West, Texas. 

2 

It affects all of us. You can’t be human and not feel for the people 

that are having to deal with these things. 

You also can’t be grateful enough to the men and women who are 

there and responding. They woke up one day and everything was 

good and they were going to go to work or enjoy a marathon, or 

just be at home, and then all of a sudden, a disaster strikes, and 

terrorism strikes. And there are good men and women who wake 

up and answer that call and respond. They didn’t necessarily 

choose or think they were going to be in that situation. But suddenly they were. Our hearts and prayers go to them. 

And certainly, with my colleague and ranking member, Mr. 

Tierney, who is obviously in the Massachusetts area today, we will 

miss him, but totally understand it is the right place for him to be. 

Senseless acts of violence and terrorism, such as what happened 

in the community of Boston, should never be tolerated. The bombings are a sober reminder that the threat of terrorism has not disappeared. 

I want to specifically commend the TSA, including officers at the 

Boston Logan Airport for their dedication and working closely with 

the Boston police to heighten security and help ensure the safety 

of the traveling public. Their quick and immediate response in 

making sure that some of those facilities were secure for some of 

the departures of somebody who might be trying to escape are certainly commendable, not only in Boston but some of the smaller, 

other regional airports as well. 

TSA proactively helped by asking passengers if they had seen 

anything, had photos or videos of the explosion. Also, it is my understanding that TSA wisely increased security at other significant 

airports during a period when it is unknown whether the bombings 

in Boston were part of a greater plot. For that, we are very grateful 

to the men and women who participated. That is what they are 

there for, and we need their help and their expertise and we appreciate it. 

The tragedy which occurred in Boston is very much relevant to 

today’s proceedings, as this hearing is designed to evaluate the impact of the sequestration on TSA’s security operations. On March 

1st of this year, the President issued a sequestration order, as required by law, mandating $3.2 billion in budget cuts for the Department of Homeland Security. 

Prior to and in the wake of sequester, Secretary Napolitano 

alarmed the public with sharp rhetoric on multiple occasions that 

TSA’s operations would in fact be significantly impacted via the sequestration. For example, on March 4th of this year, Secretary 

Napolitano stated that airport lines were already ‘‘150 to 200 percent as long as they would normally expect,’’ and that TSA would 

start sending furlough notices immediately. 

However, in TSA Deputy Administrator Halinski’s written testimony for today’s hearing, Mr. Halinski states that ‘‘the initial projected impacts on wait times are largely mitigated.’’ This assessment seems in stark contrast to Secretary Napolitano’s initial rhetoric. 

Now, we are almost two months beyond the start of sequestration, and today I would like to learn whether TSA has furloughed 

any employees, and if so, how many. I would also like to hear today 

3 

if Secretary Napolitano’s concerns about wait times doubling for 

the traveling public has proven true. 

Deputy Administrator Halinski’s written testimony also notes 

that ‘‘After applying sequestration to its final enacted fiscal year 

2013 appropriation, TSA’s fiscal year 2013 funding level is $670 

million less than fiscal year 2012.’’ 

Placed in context, however, President Obama’s fiscal year 2013 budget includes $7.65 billion for TSA, which includes more than 

$2.5 billion in fee collections. In other words, while the reduction 

to TSA’s budget does require prudent planning, I strongly believe 

that TSA could be cutting unnecessary administrative costs and 

spending more effectively on security programs and other types of 

technology. 

For example, despite the looming budget cuts required by seques- tration, TSA agreed to an eyebrow-raising $50 million contract for 

TSA uniforms. I will note, though, that I do appreciate the responsiveness from the TSA. In my short time here, I have seen a dramatic change in the responsiveness. Initially as we sent letters and 

other things back to the agency, we didn’t get any responses. But 

in the case specifically of the uniforms, we got a very thorough and 

a very timely response. That is new. We like that. We encourage 

that. We applaud it and we note it here today. 

Moreover, during the 112th Congress, this subcommittee held a 

series of TSA oversight hearings. During these hearings, we 

learned that there are numerous examples of ongoing waste at the 

TSA. These hearings examine the range of issues including the effectiveness, privacy issues, health risks associated with whole body 

imaging machines. We looked into the use of canines, airport perimeter security, SPOT program, TWIC, TSA procurement, deployment and storage of airport security-related equipment. 

I would also note the work of the then-chairman of the Transportation Committee, Mr. Mica, who is here on this panel with us 

today, and thank him for his good work on the oversight of this as 

well. 

GAO believes the SPOT program, for instance, which has already 

cost taxpayers more than $800 million, is ineffective and recommended that Congress should consider limiting funding for the 

program. Likewise, committee investigators found that TSA had 

wasted approximately $184 million by inefficiently deploying 

screening equipment and technology to commercial airports. 

These are just a few examples of a number of potential ways for 

TSA to spend taxpayer funding more efficiently to account for the 

budget reduction without impacting security operations or increasing wait times. 

Today’s hearing should explore potential solutions to account for 

the budget cuts without affecting operations. For example, instead 

of using whole body imaging, TSA should be doing an analysis of 

whether canines would be more effective in conjunction with metal 

detectors and behavioral profiling and other types of efforts like 

that. 

I also invited the Customs and Border Protection today, CBP, but 

unfortunately they are unable to testify. 

Mr. Halinski, I would like to hear your thoughts on how to lessen 

wait times for international travelers entering the United States. 

4 

I look forward to hearing from the Deputy Administrator about the 

continued planning for sequestration and the challenge faced by 

the TSA and the solutions we can reach together. 

I would now like to recognize the gentlewoman from California, 

Ms. Speier, for her opening statement. 

Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and thank you, Mr. 

Halinski, for being here. I too want to associate myself with the 

comments made by the Chair in applauding the first responders in 

Boston, our FBI who was on the scene immediately, and send our 

condolences to the families who have lost loved ones and those who 

have endured excruciating pain and maiming as a result of this 

horrific incident. It draws into clarity why we do need to have a 

homeland security operation and TSA as well. 

I first want to make clear that I believe that deficit reduction 

should be a priority. But I am also of the opinion that spending 

cuts should be targeted and implemented in a strategic way. 

Unfortunately, Congress did not allow Federal agencies that discretion. Instead, Congress required all Federal agencies to make a 

hatchery of cuts to every program activity and program. This was 

supposed to be such a bad idea that it would not happen. But as 

a result of this dysfunction and the institution it has, and we and 

the public are now seeing some of the consequences. 

We heard on Tuesday about planned cuts to services in our national parks, our beloved Smithsonian. But at least those do not affect our national security. 

At TSA, sequestration was causing reductions in the number of 

TSA officers at the Nation’s airports. TSA was powerless to prevent 

that outcome because Congress had required the agency to impose 

these across the board cuts. So Congress took action, as only Congress can. It passed a new law that provided TSA with additional 

funds to partially reverse the effects of sequestration. Still, Congress has not even tried to reverse the effects of sequestration at 

most other Federal agencies. 

Today we will hear from TSA regarding the impacts of sequestration on their operations, and on national security. I look forward 

to hearing how they have been affected by these budget cuts and 

its plans to try and balance administrative personnel and equipment costs going forward. 

One of the biggest cuts has been to TSA’s information technology 

budget. This includes checkpoint technologies, security screening 

equipment and infrastructure accounts. These budget cuts have 

caused contracts for new IT equipment and maintenance to be deferred or reduced, leaving security equipment prone to error and 

threatening our citizens safety. 

At the same time, I have in the past been concerned by some of 

TSA’s technology programs and procurement efforts including the 

much-discussed airport puffer machines several years ago, that 

were purchased without any determination of whether they would 

work in an airport environment. 

I would like to hear from TSA how TSA has improved its technology procurement practices and how, in this challenging budget 

environment, TSA will ensure accountability and an adequate acquisition workforce to ensure proper use of TSA funds in technology development. 

5 

Finally, the Federal air marshals the last line of defense against 

those who seek to disrupt domestic flights, through criminal or terrorist actions, will be cut by $49 million and are expected to remain 

on a hiring freeze. I look forward to hearing how this will affect 

the security of the traveling public and its long-term implications 

for the air marshal services. 

These are not speculations or scare tactics, but rather, these cuts 

are affecting real people and we need to have our eyes wide open 

to assess to what extent these cuts potentially jeopardize the safety 

and security of the United States. It is the responsibility of Congress to make these budget cuts more targeted and less likely to 

put innocent citizens in harm’s way. 

I would like to join with the chairman and my colleagues on both 

sides of the aisle to start a meaningful, bipartisan negotiation to 

replace aspects of the sequester and to prevent these cuts from becoming something we will regret. I have recently launched the bipartisan Congressional Watchdog Caucus with Congressman 

Coffman of Colorado to create a culture of accountability for taxpayer dollars. I firmly believe that if we work together we can be 

smarter in weeding out waste, be fiscally sound and still ensure the 

safety of the traveling public. 

In light of the despicable terrorist bombings that occurred in Boston on Monday, I cannot imagine that any American citizen is remotely interested in hearing about how the dysfunction of this Congressional body allowed unnecessary and preventable budget cuts 

to compromise their safety. 

I yield back. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I now recognize the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from California, Mr. Issa. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Speier, 

Mr. Cummings, my ranking member, and Mr. Mica. 

We have all sat through multiple hearings about the dysfunctional organization known as the TSA. Now, Ms. Speier says sequestration is to blame. If I were a southerner and had been 

around animals long enough, I could say ‘‘bull’’ in a better way. But 

it is bull. 

You are here today because, in fact, you have more assets than 

you should possibly need. You have grown assets, you have grown 

bureaucracy, your organization is constantly known as TSA, Thousands Standing Around. And the reason is, you endlessly include 

more and more people doing less and less. 

And I am not blaming the men and women of the TSA. There 

has been a pattern of acquisitions, of products that don’t work, 

warehouses filled with equipment that was bought and not used, 

contracts that promised to do one thing, and $1 billion later, they 

don’t do what they claim to do. 

I think the most important thing is, until people going through 

checkpoints see the efficiency of people with blue uniforms, and by 

the way, I would like those blue uniforms to be a little more cost 

effective the next time you buy them, they are not going to believe 

a word you say today. You can tell us everything you want to tell 

us, but the men and women on the dais here, we go through the 

checkpoints. We see it. We see long lines, we have seen long lines 

for more than a decade, as your numbers have increased. 

6 

We see more people right now working in the headquarters of the 

TSA than work in the GAO, our accounting and investigation section. You have practically as much overhead as all of Congress. 

And yes, you have made cuts in areas that could potentially endanger America, because you haven’t been willing to have attrition and 

right-sizing. You haven’t encouraged alternatives to Federal employees when you could. 

Now, the truth is, and I think the chairman would say he has 

seen it going back to Utah, like I have seen it going back to California, I listen to people who are TSA employees being used to say, 

no water bottles, put this in there, do this, do that. The bottom line 

is, that does not have to be an essential function. There were essential failures on 9/11, and they were mostly what we didn’t know. 

And each time we have had another incident, we learn something 

else, your men and women, your hard-working men and women, 

have tried to react. 

But between too much overhead, organizational failures, incredible staffing questions, I am going to close with this, Mr. Chairman. 

And this is not a normal opening statement for a chairman. But 

when I see these little daises being put up so that supervisors can 

look over the legions of people that it takes to put somebody 

through a line, I could do a simple count, and every member here 

can. The number of people to move a person through the line is not 

going down, it is going up. 

Now, you are going to testify about, woe is me, we are going to 

be unsafe because we got a little less dollars. Go back to your budget after 9/11, 2003, 2004, 2005. Move it up in constant dollars and 

I am terribly sorry, but by 2004, tell me that shouldn’t have been 

your highest cost at the time. It is not that there were more travelers, there were less. 

So as you give us your testimony, bear in mind that the only people who will really believe that you are doing all you can for efficiency and safety are people who have not flown. 

I yield back. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I thank the chairman. I now recognize the ranking member, the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Cummings, for an 

opening statement. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much. 

I had not intended to even attend this hearing. I really didn’t intend to say anything. But I want us to not be distracted. I want 

us to not be distracted. 

We have to make sure that the people that we represent are getting the best service possible. Their health, their safety, their welfare is number one. 

It is easy to sit back and try to quarterback the other team. Decisions have to be made at TSA, and I am going to believe that TSA 

wants to do the right thing. That does not necessarily mean that 

I or my colleagues will agree with those decisions. 

But first of all, I want to make sure that those decisions are 

based in a culture of integrity. That is number one. Number two, 

I want to know that they are informed decisions; that is, that you 

have gathered information and your decisions are based upon information that is accurate. Number three, I want to know that the decisions were based upon and consistent with the goals of TSA. 

7 

Now, we all know that sequestration has had its impacts. It has 

had a tremendous impact. If it can have an impact on Johns Hopkins University, which is smack dab right in the middle of my district, which is now having to end research on some life-saving types 

of research, it certainly can have an impact on TSA. What I am interested to know is, number one, how these decisions were made; 

number two, is there some room to do things differently; number 

three, were they consistent with making sure that the public is 

safe. 

And certainly we all want to know that there is a balance. Safety 

is number one. And convenience is down the line. I don’t want to 

sacrifice safety for convenience. So I am hoping that the testimony 

will shed some light on what I just said. 

Finally, let me leave you with this. In the end, the Republic is 

looking at us, as members of the Congress, and I am sure asking 

why can’t you all get this right. I am not going to sit here and 

blame TSA, I am going to blame us. We are the ones who are responsible for sequestration, because of our failure. 

Now, that does not let TSA off the hook. But we have our own 

homework to do. But in the midst, and I tell my kids that usually 

in bad situations, people do not so bright things. Under pressure, 

people do not so bright things. So I am hoping that while we are 

going through this sequestration that we are making the very best 

decisions, consistent with the goals that I just mentioned. So I am 

looking forward to hearing the testimony. And I want to know 

what the future looks like, no matter what, assuming that this 

Congress is doing what it is supposed to do. I am praying to God 

that we do, but assuming that we don’t, assuming that there are 

additional cuts, I want to know what the future looks like. Because 

that is what we have to deal with. We cannot deal with illusions. 

This is reality, because we are dealing with the safety of our constituents. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for your courtesy, 

and I yield back. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I thank the ranking member and now recognize 

the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Mica, for five minutes. 

Mr. MICA. First of all, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and ranking 

member. Let me say that Mr. Chaffetz and I and the chairman 

have sat down to look at how we are going to approach improving 

and reforming TSA. And with this hearing, we are beginning under 

the jurisdiction of this subcommittee, National Security, that process. 

We will continue that in my subcommittee, Government Operations. We will begin a series of hearings in May and we will target 

some operations that transcend just the national security area. And 

you can see from the passion of the chairman, probably at the full 

committee, we will be taking up this matter as far as the need to 

reform and dramatically overhaul an agency that has spun out of 

control. 

I can tell you that it has spun out of control because I helped create it. Originally we had 16,500 screeners, private screeners under 

the airlines’ supervision. On 9/11/2001, it wasn’t that group that 

failed, it was the Federal Government who did not set guidelines 

or parameters or restrictions in place. Never, I can tell you, in our 

8 

wildest imagination, did we expect to balloon from 16,500 to 65,000 

TSA employees. In fact, we have now grown to bigger than seven 

Cabinet agencies. We are spending close to $8 billion, an incredible 

sum of money. 

We have 51,000 screeners, according to their website. That 

means you have another 14,000 administrative staff. I see they are 

now cooking the latest books and trying to mislead Congress on 

what they spend for administration, which is approximately $1.8 

billion for screening and about $1.2 billion. They have 28 percent 

of the headquarters employees who are supervisors. We are here to 

talk about sequestration, and as the chairman pointed out in his 

opening statement, the Secretary tried to mislead the public and 

the Congress by saying that line would be 150 percent or people 

would be inconvenienced by what Congress did. 

Now, with 51,000 screeners, they can’t get the job done. I can tell 

you it can be done with less than half that number. We need to 

get them out of the screening business. They are not law enforcement officers. TSA was set up to connect the dots and also to set 

the standards and also to coordinate some of the effort. But what 

we have now is an agency that again has spun out of control. We 

have again a situation where they are spending money, and we will 

look at it today, on things like uniforms. I am told that our Marines are given a $400 lifetime allowance. And a few weeks before 

sequestration they sign a multi-million, I think it is tens of millions 

of dollars for thousand dollar, which I guess they had agreed to 

with the screeners’ allowance, to put that into perspective. 

We only have 457 airports where we have TSA’s presence, and 

we are spending in fact huge amounts of money with huge amounts 

of personnel. If you take 3,000 to 4,000 people in Washington, administrative personnel, another 10,000 in the field, do the math of 

the army that is out there in administrative staff alone, not to 

mention the failures in training, employment, in a whole host of 

areas that are all outlined. I would ask that this report that the 

Transportation Committee put together on the tenure record of 

TSA, which is a record of failure, it was outlined by the chairman, 

the purchase and implementation of deployment of top technology, 

of hiring and training, retaining personnel. It goes on and on. 

The different systems that have been put in place, not by my 

judgment, but by other evaluative agencies like GAO, the failure 

in behavior detection programs, never detecting a single terrorist, 

in fact, letting some of the known suspects get through. It is a 

record of failure and it needs to stop. 

I look forward to working with Chairman Chaffetz, the full committee chairman, ranking member and others to do better. We can 

and we must. I yield back. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Without objection, we will enter that into the 

record. So ordered. 

Does the gentleman from South Carolina have an opening statement? 

Mr. GOWDY. No, sir, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Members will have seven days to submit opening 

statements for the record. 

We will now recognize our first panel, the only witness that we 

have here today, Mr. John Halinski, who is the Deputy AdminisVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:03 Jun 04, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\81243.TXT APRIL
9 

trator for the Transportation Security Administration. Mr. 

Halinski, we appreciate your being here today. 

Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses are sworn in before 

they testify. So if you would please stand and raise your right 

hand. 

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are 

about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but 

the truth? 

[Witness responds in the affirmative.] 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you. You may be seated, and let the record 

reflect that the witness answered in the affirmative. 

Mr. Halinski, we now recognize you for your opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN W. HALINSKI, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, 

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. HALINSKI. Good morning Chairman, distinguished members 

of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today 

about the impact of sequestration on the Transportation Security 

Administration’s operations. 

As you know, the President’s March 1 sequestration order, as 

mandated by law, requires across-the-board budget cuts at most 

Federal agencies, including $3.2 billion in cuts for the Department 

of Homeland Security through the end of this fiscal year. 

TSA is the Federal Government’s lead agency for protecting our 

transportation systems from terrorist attacks while ensuring the 

freedom of movement for people and commerce. The agency manages effective and efficient screening and security of all air passengers, baggage, and cargo on passenger planes. It also deploys 

Federal Air Marshals internationally and domestically to detect, 

deter, and defeat hostile acts targeting air carriers, airports, passengers, crews, and other transportation infrastructure. 

Each year, transportation systems protected by TSA accommodate approximately 640 million aviation passengers; 751 million 

passengers traveling on buses; more than 9 billion passenger trips 

on mass transit; nearly 800,000 daily shipments of hazardous materials; more than 140,000 miles of railroad track; more than 4 million miles of public roads; and nearly 2.6 million miles of pipeline. 

TSA functions as a critical component of those efforts with a 

highly dedicated workforce working around the clock and across 

the globe to execute our transportation security responsibilities. 

Every day we interact closely with public and private sector stakeholders in the aviation, freight rail, mass transit, passenger rail, 

highway, and pipeline sectors to employ an intelligence-driven, 

risk-based security approach across all modes of transportation. We 

are dedicated to preventing terrorist attacks, reducing the vulnerability of our transportation systems to terrorism, and improving 

the experience of the nearly 1.8 million domestic air passengers 

who fly each day. 

Throughout the planning efforts, TSA and its DHS components 

were careful to strike a balance to take prudent, responsible steps 

to implementing the across-the-board budget reductions. Our guiding principles have been as follows. One, preserve TSA’s frontline 

operations and other mission-critical activities to the maximum exVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:03 Jun 04, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\81243.TXT APRIL
10 

tent possible. Two, take care of our workforce by managing hiring 

practices, managing overtime and through other means. 

While the reductions required by sequestration will continue to 

impact our operations, the recent passage by Congress of the fiscal 

year 2013 Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriation Act 

provides TSA with some additional funding for transportation security officers, which to some degree lessens the impact on our workforce and operations. 

TSA will use these additional funds to maintain its security 

screening workforce through prudent management of hiring and 

controlled overtime. 

Although initial projected impacts on wait times are likely to be 

mitigated through the additional funding provided by Congress, 

travelers may see lines and wait times increase during the busiest 

travel periods or required surge operations. The Federal Air Marshal Service has had a hiring pause in place for more than a year 

to manage a planned program adjustment from $965.8 million in 

fiscal year 2012 to $929.6 million in fiscal year 2013. Congress further reduced that funding in the full fiscal year 2013 appropriation 

to $906.9 million, or $858 million under sequestration, an 11.1 percent cut below fiscal year 2012 levels. 

The FAMS mission funding is dominated by personnel, travel, 

and related costs. TSA continues to assess the personnel actions 

and mission adjustments that will be necessary at this decreased 

budget level. 

Sequestration has also had impacts on TSA’s information technology, checkpoint technology, security screening equipment and 

infrastructure accounts, totaling a $288 million reduction from fiscal year 2012. In light of these cuts, IT service contracts, equipment refreshment and maintenance schedules will be deferred or 

reduced through the end of the fiscal year. Furthermore, security 

equipment technology replacement and investment plans are being 

adjusted to reflect the reduced budget level. 

Finally, TSA is taking action to establish additional controls 

across the agency. We have canceled previously approved training 

activities, conferences and meetings that require travel. This includes management control training, field and oversight and compliance audits, operational and support program coordination planning and preparedness training. 

Our Nation continues to face an evolving threat to our transportation system. In the face of sequestration, TSA will continue implementing an intelligence-driven, risk-based approach to security 

across all transportation modes, and to do so as efficiently as possible. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I look 

forward to answering your questions. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Halinski follows:] 

11 


Insert offset folio 1 here 81243.001
12 


Insert offset folio 2 here 81243.002
13 


Insert offset folio 3 here 81243.003
14 


Insert offset folio 4 here 81243.004
15 


Insert offset folio 5 here 81243.005
16 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you, Mr. Halinski. Again, we appreciate 

your being here. 

I will now recognize myself for five minutes. 

How many furloughs do you anticipate, or how many have happened so far and how many do you anticipate? 

Mr. HALINSKI. Sir, at this point we do not anticipate any furloughs. We believe that through managed hiring practices, and control of overtime, we will not have to furlough any of our personnel. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. So no furloughs. Number two here on my list of 

questions, where specifically are we experiencing longer lines than 

pre-sequestration? You have the same personnel, right? So there 

are no furloughs. Where are we having longer lines? 

Mr. HALINSKI. Sir, I would tell you that I don’t know that we are 

having longer lines across the board anywhere at the checkpoint. 

If we do, it can be dependent on a number of factors, weather, 

flight delays, things like that. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. So there are natural things that would happen 

that have nothing to do with sequestration. Would it be fair for me 

to say that due to sequestration, there are no longer lines? 

Mr. HALINSKI. I would say that we have not experienced any 

longer lines at this point, sir. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. When did you start planning for sequestration? 

Mr. HALINSKI. Sir, we started planning for sequestration in 2012. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Do you know when in 2012? 

Mr. HALINSKI. I don’t have that right off the top of my head, sir. 

I know it was in late 2012 we started looking at sequestration, the 

effects. And we planned almost on a daily basis. We looked at a 

number of factors. What I would say, sir, is that things moved 

quickly. It was bit of a moving target. Sequestration, no sequestration, CR, no CR, budget, no budget. And we continued to plan 

based on numbers that we got both from the House and the Senate. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. What I am trying to do is commend you for the 

fact that, the contrast that I see here, I want to commend you for 

planning in such a way that you were able to absorb a cut in the 

budget. Despite what Secretary Napolitano said, there are no 

longer lines, there are no furloughs out there. TSA is one place that 

we can point where the services were basically uninterrupted, and 

the effect to the public was minimized. I compliment you for that. 

I think we can all, every once in a while, we have growing and expanding budgets and you have cut back just a little bit, you have 

tightened your belt a little bit, you have become more efficient. 

Sometimes that pushes you. My compliments and hats off to you. 

The inbound international passengers are experiencing some 

lines. But that has nothing to do with the TSA, is that correct? Is 

that Customs and Border Patrol that is slowing those lines down? 

Mr. HALINSKI. Sir, I believe that the Secretary clarified a couple 

of weeks ago when she was talking about longer wait times that 

it was not the TSA, that it was Customs and Border Protection, 

where they were experiencing longer wait times, sir. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. So you did something that they didn’t do. Obviously you have been able to make the adjustments, no furloughs, 

no longer lines. I think there are an awful lot of scare tactics out 

there, they still continue, you still have people saying, oh, my goodness, the world is falling down and people are going to die and we 

17 

can’t invest. But at least I think part of the story here with the 

TSA is you have been able to absorb it. The public has been well 

served. 

There are still a lot of issues that we have with the TSA. But 

what I am trying to get at is specific to sequestration. I think that 

is interesting. 

I know Mr. Mica has done a lot of work on this, particularly as 

the chair of the Transportation Committee, he may hit on this as 

well. I want to ask you about the TWIC program, this is the Transportation Worker Identification Cards. There was a GAO report 

back in May of 2011 that said that it ‘‘could cost the Federal Government and the private sector combined total of between $694.3 

million and $3.2 billion over a 10-year period.’’ And yet still to this 

day, we don’t even have the scanners needed to read these cards. 

This and the FAA card, which I am not going to hold you responsible for, that is another whole issue, but the TWIC card, where are 

we with that? What kinds of problems and challenges is that causing at security, particularly at airports? 

Mr. HALINSKI. Sir, first let me say that the TWIC program is a 

fee-based program, number one. Two, that the TSA portion of the 

TWIC program, and we work very closely with the Coast Guard 

and the Department on this particular program, TSA’s portion of 

this basically can be defined in two areas. The first I would say is 

customer support at the enrollment centers. I would tell you that 

we have done an assessment of those particular enrollment centers 

based on complaints that we received. We have adjusted that, we 

have changed contractors and we are having a more direct approach on that customer service approach and oversight. 

The second piece is more of a technical piece for TSA, sir, and 

that is the identification of readers, quite frankly. We would provide a best qualified or a recommended qualified list of readers. 

One of the issues that we have encountered, sir, is the fact that 

trying to look at contractors that have readers and push them forward to try to develop readers that we think will meet the requirements. We believe we are working on that, we just had an industry 

day last week with a variety of vendors to provide those readers. 

We would like to get that out in a very short period of time, a recommended list for the TWIC card moving forward. 

As I said, we worked very closely with the Coast Guard on this, 

sir, and the Department, on the TWIC program. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you. I look forward to continued updates. 

This is a very costly endeavor and should have really been implemented much sooner. But I appreciate the update and look forward 

to more. 

I will now recognize the ranking member here today, Ms. Speier, 

for five minutes. 

Ms. SPEIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Halinski, you actually had money restored to your budget 

after sequestration in the CR. How much was restored to your 

budget? 

Mr. HALINSKI. Ma’am, I don’t have that right here. The other 

piece that I think is important about TSA is that we also have twoyear money. Unlike many other components in DHS, and many 

other agencies, we had two-year money with carryover. So that 

18 

helped us quite a bit, where it may not have helped other components or the Department. 

Ms. SPEIER. So the chairman’s comments that well, you didn’t 

furlough anyone, you were able to live within sequestration, does 

not take into effect that one, you have a two-year budget, and two, 

in the CR you had money restored to your budget that other departments did not have, is that correct? 

Mr. HALINSKI. I would tell you, ma’am, I would like to go back 

to what I said about planning. We have planned meticulously for 

sequestration. We want to focus on two things. One is making sure 

that we accomplish our mission based on the threat. Two is that 

we take care of our workforce. We have tried to avoid furloughs, 

we have used two-year money. We have used money that was resubmitted to us. And that is the process we have used. We continue 

to plan to make sure that we can accomplish those first two objectives. 

Ms. SPEIER. All right. We tend to focus on the airports as being 

your sole responsibility. The truth is, TSA also has the responsibility to oversee rail security and pipeline security, is that correct? 

Mr. HALINSKI. Yes, ma’am, it is. 

Ms. SPEIER. I just wanted to make a point of that. 

I have had an interesting experience with TSA and their uniforms. A number of years ago, a contract was issued to a company 

here in the United States to make the uniforms for TSA. It was 

competitively bid. And once it had the contract, it realized there 

wasn’t a requirement that the actual uniforms be made in the 

United States. So they closed the plant here in the United States 

and they made the uniforms in Mexico. 

Is this the same company that you have just issued a new contract to? 

Mr. HALINSKI. I am not sure if it is the same company, ma’am. 

The company that we use is a company called VF Image. A portion 

of the uniforms are made in Mexico. We have to comply by NAFTA 

as well as the U.S.-Chilean trade agreement. We are in compliance 

with the law in that area. 

About a third of the uniforms that our officers have are made in 

the United States. The material itself is made in the United States. 

The company assembles the uniforms and it is shipped back and 

we are trying to comply with the NAFTA and the U.S.-Chilean 

trade agreement, ma’am. 

Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Halinski, we somehow get around the NAFTA 

rule when it comes to military uniforms being made in the United 

States for security purposes. I can’t imagine why NAFTA applies 

to TSA. And, if in fact, NAFTA does apply to TSA, then I think this 

committee should take some steps to make sure that we are making these uniforms in the United States, and not in a foreign country whether NAFTA is involved or not. We actually closed a plant 

here in the United States. Jobs were lost in the United States because this company, upon getting the contract, recognized it could 

make them in Mexico. 

Now, let’s move on to talk about this. This is a $50 million contract. Is this a ceiling, or is this the actual amount of money that 

will be spent on these uniforms? 

19 

Mr. HALINSKI. Ma’am, it is a ceiling. It is a bridge contract. We 

are moving to align with the Department so that the acquisition 

process for the uniforms in the future. It is a two-year bridge contract. It is the ceiling. Typically over the last couple of years, the 

allowance that we have spent on uniforms is between $16 million 

and about $19 million. 

I would say, ma’am, it is essential, we are a uniformed service, 

we require uniforms to conduct our activities. 

Ms. SPEIER. I understand that. Is there a provision within this 

contract for you to cancel the contract? 

Mr. HALINSKI. Ma’am, I don’t know that. I could get back with 

you on that. 

Ms. SPEIER. All right, would you please inform the committee 

about that? 

I still continue to be very disturbed that these uniforms are being 

made, the majority of these uniforms, based on your testimony, 

two-thirds of them are being made outside the United States. It is 

a slap in the American people’s face, I think. And for all the people 

that are unemployed in this Country, even today, the fact that we 

are making them in Mexico is very disturbing to me. 

I yield back. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I now recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. 

Mica, for five minutes. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. 

Let me continue on the uniforms. What did you just say, that we 

are a uniformed agency? What was your term? 

Mr. HALINSKI. Yes, sir, we are a uniformed service. 

Mr. MICA. Who told you you were? Where is it written? 

Mr. HALINSKI. Sir, I will have to go back. 

Mr. MICA. Where is it written? You just said that before the committee. 

Mr. HALINSKI. Sir, I believe it is in ATSA that we are a uniformed agency. 

Mr. MICA. Are your personnel, your screeners, are they sworn 

personnel? Are they sworn law enforcement personnel? The answer 

is no. You are the deputy, you don’t know. First of all, you came 

up with the term that they are uniformed. Secondly, you do not 

know whether they are sworn. Are they sworn personnel? Are they 

law enforcement personnel? They are not. Come on, admit it to the 

committee. Yes or no? Is there some acoustical problem we have 

here? Maybe staff should check it. Can he hear me? Can the witness hear me? 

Mr. HALINSKI. Yes, sir, I can hear you. 

Mr. MICA. Are they sworn personnel? They are not. Is that correct? They are not sworn personnel. Why do we even have law enforcement personnel to supplement TSA personnel at almost every 

exit? Because TSA are not law enforcement officers. They are 

screeners. And now you are telling me they are uniformed personnel. You just heard the ranking member, what an insult. 

You hijack an agency like TSA, you turn it into one of the biggest 

bureaucracies we have ever created. I want to know the cost of 

changing out, you had white uniforms, didn’t you, when we started 

for many years? Didn’t we have white uniforms, without a badge? 

20 

They had a TSA patch without a badge? How much did the badges 

cost? 

They are not sworn, or they are not law enforcement. You went 

out and bought millions of dollars worth of badges, didn’t you? The 

insult too is we’re wearing Mexican uniforms, you changed them 

out to blue to look like law enforcement folks another mirage. Have 

you ever looked at England and U.K., for example, two areas that 

have experienced probably the highest levels of terrorism and 

bombing and terrorist incidents? Most of their employees don’t 

even wear uniforms, did you know that? Have you been there, to 

both of those? 

Mr. HALINSKI. Yes, sir, I have. 

Mr. MICA. Did you notice that? I was just in Israel earlier this 

year. I was in the U.K. just a while ago, inspected the people who 

are there. They don’t even wear them. Here, you spent $50 million, 

now I am told you have committed this every year, this is a $1,000 

a year, 51,000 employees, is that true? Just before sequestration, 

you signed the contract, right? 

Were you aware that our uniformed personnel, like our Marines, get a one-time $400 lifetime allowance when you cooked that deal 

with the unions? Were you aware of that? Did you look at that? 

Mr. HALINSKI. Could I have an opportunity to respond, sir? 

Mr. MICA. Did you look at who else, like men and women who 

put their lives at risk in our military, what they get as an allowance? Is that going to continue? Is that going to continue every 

year? 

Mr. HALINSKI. Sir, I spent 25 years in the Marine Corps. I know 

the Marine Corps very well. 

Mr. MICA. Okay, then you should know the allowance. I am more 

offended by someone who has been in the Marines or aware of the 

Marines and to give that kind of a deal. Is this every year? 

Mr. HALINSKI. Sir, may I have a chance to respond? 

Mr. MICA. Is it a thousand dollars a year? Simple question. 

Mr. HALINSKI. Sir, what we spend on our uniforms is not a thousand dollars a year. We have an initial allowance of about $371, 

which allows our screeners to buy three sets of uniforms. 

Mr. MICA. To wear the Mexican uniforms. 

Mr. HALINSKI. Sir, those are uniforms that are in compliance 

with the regulation. They are the uniforms that were procured 

through a procurement process which was the most effective process, sir. 

Mr. MICA. Let me say, Mr. Deputy Secretary, I have no problem 

with collective bargaining. I think you are screwing the screeners, 

when you spend $1.2 million in administration and they are getting 

about $1.8 or $1.9 billion, when you have 28 percent of the personnel in Washington as supervisors, the average salary in Washington, D.C. for personnel is $104,000 a year. And those guys are 

dogging it at $38,357, on average. I have no problem with that. 

I see the other great things you negotiated with, some conduct 

of security in business or anything, improving that. It was the size 

of the tie tack, wasn’t that part of the agreement, whether they 

could wear a TSA emblem on their ball caps, is that correct? 

Whether they could wear a vest with the TSA emblem, those are 

some of the other terms of the agreement? 

21 

Mr. HALINSKI. Sir, I can answer your questions on the uniform 

if I have an opportunity to speak. 

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I have a whole host of questions, I 

don’t know if we will get to another round. But they ignored us in 

the Transportation Committee for a total of six years. We have 

questions that they have not answered. I will submit to the committee all of the remaining questions. And I know you signed off 

and Mr. Issa signed off, they still have not responded. 

And I am telling you, if I have to come down there and sit in Mr. 

Pistole’s office, we are going to get answers to those questions that 

are pending. They will be submitted through the committee and 

the chairman. And if we have another round, I have additional 

questions. 

Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Yes. 

Ms. SPEIER. I would request that Mr. Halinski be given the opportunity to answer those questions. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. We will certainly submit the questions. And Mr. 

Halinski, if you would like to take time to respond, we will be 

happy to have you do that. Then we will recognize the ranking 

member of the full committee, Mr. Cummings. 

Mr. HALINSKI. Yes, sir. On the subject of the uniforms, sir, every 

personnel that comes into TSA takes an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. We serve the public, sir. Our job is 

to protect the traveling public. We take that very serious. If we fail 

at our job, people die. 

We wear uniforms. We are a uniformed service. It doesn’t mean 

we are a law enforcement service. We are a uniformed service. We 

looked at this contract because it was expiring. We went through 

many different planning processes. We were not going to have a 

contract to buy new uniforms or replace worn and torn uniforms 

if we didn’t sign that contract. 

Bad timing, sir, 17 February, 2013. It wasn’t Machiavellian, we 

weren’t doing that against anybody. We want and we have to have 

uniforms, bottom line. We follow an acquisition and procurement 

process which means that we go for the lowest cost uniforms, sir. 

And quite frankly, it is a bridge contract, it is a two-year contract. 

We have no intentions of, hopefully not, getting anywhere near 

that ceiling. But it is a requirement that we have those uniforms, 

sir. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you. 

We will now recognize the gentleman from Maryland, the ranking member, Mr. Cummings, for five minutes. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Halinski, I am sure you can understand the 

frustration. We are trying to make sure that Americans have jobs. 

And certainly your challenges, because like NAFTA and the things 

you have to do in the bidding process, got that. But I want to make 

sure that you know that we up here are trying to make sure, just 

like those TSA folks have their jobs, we want to make sure that 

other Americans have jobs, too. 

But I do understand the dilemma. All I am saying is that wherever American jobs can be provided, we need to do that. You got 

that? Are you listening, sir? 

Mr. HALINSKI. I understand, sir. Absolutely. 

22 

Mr. CUMMINGS. All right. 

I can imagine your frustration, I sit on the Transportation Committee also. Whenever there is a problem with regard to something 

getting through an airport, with somebody getting through an airport, you are damned. And at the same time, I guess TSA is trying 

to keep a balance, personnel trying to figure out how many people 

you need at certain airports, so that you can protect the public. Got 

that. 

The question is, you are in a situation right now where, and I 

am going to something Ms. Speier asked you about, she was asking 

you that you had some funds restored under the CR, you said you 

did, did you not? 

Mr. HALINSKI. We did, yes, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And she asked you at least three times how 

much was restored. You don’t know that answer? 

Mr. HALINSKI. I don’t have that right in front of me, sir. I can 

get back with that answer, sir. We were given enough funds which 

has helped us maintain our screening work. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I understand that. I would suggest to you that 

whenever you are testifying before Congress and they are going to 

ask you about the things that we are talking about, a logical bit 

of information to have is that, you have to anticipate some questions, and that is one you should have anticipated, how much 

money you have and what impact has that had on what you have 

been able to do, that is, maintaining services as they are. 

And so you don’t know that. And I would think that the two people sitting behind you, are they with you? 

Mr. HALINSKI. Yes, sir 

Mr. CUMMINGS. They should have been able to get a cell phone 

call in the meantime to let us know that. Hopefully we can find 

that out very shortly. 

But you are freezing employment, right? In other words, if somebody retires, you are not hiring anybody? Or somebody quits, you 

are not hiring anybody? Or are you? 

Mr. HALINSKI. We are hiring, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. You are? 

Mr. HALINSKI. Yes, sir. The way we have been able to manage 

this sequestration is to do it through managed hiring, managing 

our overtime. And what do I mean by managed hiring, sir, what 

I am talking about, we understand, we have a normal attrition rate 

per year. We look at the attrition rate, it is also very dependent 

on specific airports and regions in the Country. What we are doing 

is we are hiring to a level that we believe, and it is a very high 

level, and in some cases it is 100 percent, so that we can continue 

to conduct the mission. It is planning, sir, and we are planning to 

that level and we are hiring to that level. 

We are also managing overtime. We are trying to restrict overtime to only mission-critical, absolutely mission-critical periods of 

time. That is the way we are dealing with sequestration, sir, 

through proper planning and through looking at it every single 

day. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Let’s go to managed hiring. I just have two more 

questions. Under managed hiring, there is a bottom line, is there 

not? In other words, there is a goal. Say for example, you spent a 

23 

billion dollars last year, maybe you want to come down to threefourths of a billion this year. Do you have a goal? Do you follow 

what I am saying? 

Mr. HALINSKI. Sir, we are looking at it from a fiscal process, but 

more importantly, we are looking at it from a threat perspective 

and also a manpower issue. So when we are looking at this, we are 

factoring all those areas in there. Specifically to accomplish our 

mission, which is to secure those airports. We are looking at 

threats in those specific airports, down to specific airports. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I got that. 

Mr. HALINSKI. How many people we need to accomplish that mission. And that is how we are hiring. And what the attrition rate 

is in those areas. Some airports have higher attrition rates. That 

is why in some airports we will hire absolutely to 100 percent. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. What I am asking you, though, the thing that 

you also have to calculate in there, I am assuming, is cost, right? 

In other words, you are trying to get out of it. You are not answering my question. Are you trying to get to a certain goal, cost-wise? 

Mr. HALINSKI. Sir, what we are looking at it the modeling that 

we need to accomplish that mission. Yes, we are factoring in costs. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. So you want to reduce costs? 

Mr. HALINSKI. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. That is all I am asking you. 

Mr. HALINSKI. Yes, sir, we are looking at costs. We are trying to 

save wherever we can, sir. And that is why we are looking at some 

reduced manpower models in specific airports, based on what we 

need to accomplish that mission. So yes, we are looking at costs. 

I have a financial team of analysts that look at those costs. I don’t 

have those costs right in front of me, sir. Next time I will be better 

prepared. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you. Just the last thing, and I think we 

all should be interested in this, and you should be interested in 

this question, too. The question becomes, if you are managing overtime, does that mean that you are overspending for overtime at 

some point? Do you follow what I am saying? 

I am assuming that you are keeping safety at the same level. I 

am assuming you are spending less money. But I mean, for 

credibility’s sake, for your credibility’s sake, I am just curious, were 

we overspending on overtime? Do you follow me? 

Mr. HALINSKI. Yes, sir. No, I do not believe we were. When we 

are talking about looking at overtime, let me give you an example, 

sir. In an airport, to preclude periods of extended lines, things like 

that, we may bring on more people for a period of time. So what 

we are trying to do is look at where we think the threat is, where 

we see the highest volume of traffic, and managing that based on 

the expectation that we move people through the checkpoint quickly. The idea is to use a risk-based philosophy, move them through 

quickly, and focus on where we consider the highest threat, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have been most courteous, thank 

you. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I thank you. 

We will now recognize the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. 

Gowdy, for five minutes. 

24 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, I had initially intended to yield my time to you. 

Because of all the folks that I have worked with in Congress, at 

least in the two years I have been here, you have been as interested in the workings of TSA as any of my colleagues. So that was 

my original intent, and I think I will still do that at some point. 

But Mr. Halinski, some earlier questioning led me to want to ask 

you a couple of questions. Let me start by saying thank you for 

your service to our Country. I think you told Mr. Mica that you 

served in the Marine Corps, and I want to thank you for your service. 

You also, in response to Chairman Chaffetz, he asked you some 

questions about some prior comments made by Secretary 

Napolitano. My concern is that once credibility is impeached, it is 

awfully hard to get back. Credibility can be impeached either because of a prior inconsistent statement, or credibility can be impeached because of the use of hyperbole. So when you say there are 

going to be furloughs and there is no furlough, that to me impacts 

someone’s credibility. 

So do you know the genesis or the origin of her mistaken belief 

that there were going to be furloughs because of sequestration? 

Mr. HALINSKI. Sir, first, I can’t speak for the Secretary. But I 

would tell you that the entire Department was working together, 

looking at what was needed, what money would be available, what 

the impact of sequestration would be. As I said earlier, it was a 

moving target, sir. 

Mr. GOWDY. I understand that, and I understand you can’t speak 

for her. I am not asking you to speak for her. What I am asking 

is, did she speak to you? 

Mr. HALINSKI. Sir, we worked very closely with the Department. 

Mr. GOWDY. Did she talk to you before she made the public statement that there would be furloughs? Who gave her the false information which she then relied upon and made public proclamations? 

Mr. HALINSKI. Sir, there was a number of planning factors that 

continued to move throughout the year before sequestration, right 

after sequestration. 

Mr. GOWDY. Why would the better course of discretion not be to 

not make any comments until you actually knew what the heck 

was going to happen? Why would that not be the better course? Or 

am I just naive? 

Mr. HALINSKI. Sir, I would tell you that we continue to plan for 

a number of different factors. 

Mr. GOWDY. Did she talk to you before she made those public 

comments? That is actually not a complex question. 

Mr. HALINSKI. Sir, the Secretary did not talk to me, but we are 

working with her staff. 

Mr. GOWDY. So the answer would be no, she did not. Do you 

know who she talked to before she publicly created this Mayan 

apocalypse scenario with long lines and furloughs? 

Mr. HALINSKI. Sir, I believe the Secretary clarified that the long 

lines and furloughs she was talking about were immigration checkpoints 

Mr. GOWDY. But you know what? The beautiful thing about clarification is if you get it right the first time, you actually don’t need 

25 

to clarify anything. I guess that is what I am asking, is why not 

use a little bit of discretion, gather the facts before you go make 

hyperbolic, apocalyptic comments? Why is that not the better 

course? You agree it is, right? That way you don’t have to clarify. 

Mr. HALINSKI. Sir, I am going to go back to what I said that 

there was an enormous amount of planning being done. The terrain 

was shifting continually. 

Mr. GOWDY. And I want to go back to my original question, 

which is, isn’t it a better course of discretion to not make false comments to begin with? Accordingly, you would never have to make 

a clarification, if you actually gathered your facts before you made 

public pronouncements which were demonstrably false. 

Mr. HALINSKI. Sir, I am going to once again go back to, the terrain continued to shift. There was planning every day, there was 

worst case to best case scenario and everything in between, how 

are we going to deal with this. 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, let me ask you a broader question. Do you 

agree, if the public is cynical or skeptical about pronouncements 

made by government, and I include myself in it, I am a member 

of Congress, there is a skepticism and a cynicism. Would you not 

agree that we should make every effort to be credible and accurate 

in what we say, what the effects of something are going to be? On 

both sides of the aisle, everyone, regardless of political affiliation, 

we really ought to make an effort to be accurate with what we say. 

That is not a controversial comment, is it? 

Mr. HALINSKI. No, sir, and I think every day there was a different definition of what was going on. And people tried to be as 

accurate as they could. 

Mr. GOWDY. Which is why you don’t send out press releases 

every day. Right? If things are changing every day, you wait until 

something actually has settled and you don’t send out press releases every day. That would obviate the need for clarification, in 

my judgment. 

With that, I would yield the remainder of my time to Chairman 

Chaffetz. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Halinski, the difficult part, and I know you 

are not the Secretary, you didn’t make this comment, but she was 

quoted, and I will read the quote from her, ‘‘We will begin today 

sending out furlough notices.’’ Now, I don’t know what time of day 

she said that, but by the time we got to the end of the day, there 

were no furlough notices sent out. In fact, we are here April 19th 

and there were no furlough notices sent out. 

So we are trying to figure out what changed in those few hours 

and who provided her that information. 

Mr. HALINSKI. Sir, I believe she was not talking about TSA. I believe she was talking about other components within the Department and not TSA. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Well, the beginning of the quote is, now that we 

are having to reduce and eliminate basic overtime for both TSA 

and Customs, and then she goes on. And then the story says, lines 

at some Transportation Security Administration checkpoints, 

Napolitano added that the events sponsored by Politico, are already, ‘‘already,’’ she said, ‘‘150 to 200 percent as long as we would 

normally expect.’’ But you testified that that never happened. 

26 

So the question is, is somebody feeding her bad information? 

How is there such a discrepancy, to say that lines are going to be 

up to 200 percent more and you can’t name a single one that is 

even a little bit more? 

Mr. HALINSKI. Sir, the Secretary did clarify that those were Immigration lines that she was talking about at certain airports. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. I will now 

recognize the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Speier. 

Ms. SPEIER. I have no further questions. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I believe Mr. Mica from Florida has some additional questions. This will be the last set of questions, and then we 

will adjourn due to pending votes. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The latest figures I had for TSA online, are 64,578 employees. Is 

that about right, Mr. Halinski? 

Mr. HALINSKI. Sir, I believe our approximate number right now 

is about 61,000 personnel, sir. 

Mr. MICA. You testified today that we would not need any furloughs, is that correct? 

Mr. HALINSKI. Sir, we are working to avoid furloughs, yes, sir. 

Mr. MICA. How many screeners do you have, I think you had up 

to 51,000 approximately? 

Mr. HALINSKI. Approximately, yes, sir. 

Mr. MICA. Is that still the case? 

Mr. HALINSKI. I believe it is, sir. 

Mr. MICA. How many vacancies do we have? 

Mr. HALINSKI. Our screening workforce, sir, we are hiring to a 

certain percentage, roughly we are talking about 47,000 as of 

today, sir. 

Mr. MICA. So you are actually down about 4,000? 

Mr. HALINSKI. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MICA. At one time we had, Congress had set a maximum of 

40,000. Actually that was when there was a higher number of passengers, I believe. So what would be the number of screeners that 

you could operate with without any delays, do you know? There are 

47,000 could you absorb another 5,000 cut, 10 percent, 4,000? 

Mr. HALINSKI. Yes, sir. First let me say that we have a layered 

security program. That layer involves many different aspects of security. We believe in the layered program. All our screeners are involved in a number of different security activities, because we believe a layered effect is the way for successful security. 

Mr. MICA. One of the layers that you have that I disagree with 

is the huge bureaucracy, about 9,000 to 10,000 people out in the 

field, and then another, well, it used to be 4,000 in Washington. I 

see you have done some new accounting and taken some folks off 

of that. So it is approximately 3,000. Administrator Pistole promised me a downsizing in the administrative overhead. Can you tell 

us, we are down in screeners, you just testified, from 51,000 to 

47,000. 

Now, again, not doing the phony baloney math, what are we at 

in administrative personnel in Washington and then in the field? 

Mr. HALINSKI. Sir, our headquarters has approximately 2,500 

personnel. That is about 4 percent. 

27 

Mr. MICA. Again, you took out some of the air marshal and other 

activities that were previously counted, is that correct, in your new 

accounting? 

Mr. HALINSKI. Sir, we have our operations center, we have our 

vetting center in Annapolis. Part of the headquarters personnel 

that you are talking about also was our international staff. All of 

those numbers fell under an accounting line as being part of headquarters. Actually they are not located at headquarters. 

Mr. MICA. Again, there is a new math, new accounting. But what 

I am trying to get at is the net number of positions that have been 

reduced, both in Washington, D.C., if you could get that to the committee and then out in the field. God bless the screeners, they are 

working, there are fewer of them. 

Now, another thing that I haven’t been able to get information 

on is you have a national security deployment force. 

Mr. HALINSKI. Yes, sir, we do. 

Mr. MICA. Is that still operating? 

Mr. HALINSKI. Yes, sir, it is. 

Mr. MICA. They are strange names, and I never get straight answers on how much it costs. Because they go out, they are sent out 

at places where you can’t hire people or you have vacancies for 

some personnel management reason, is that correct? 

Mr. HALINSKI. Sir, our national deployment force is made up of 

screeners who normally work in the airports. When there is a 

threat, then they are deployed. 

Mr. MICA. I am talking about the people that are sent out there, 

they are put on per diem and they are screening because of a lack 

of ability to either recruit, train or have personnel to cover those 

vacancies. That force is still in place. Will you get me and the committee the last five years of costs? You changed names a couple of 

times. When I started inquiring, because I had information that 

they were being put up at substantial expense, I don’t know for certain, and sent out to different places, because again of the failure 

to be able to recruit and train. Are you still recruiting people in the 

Washington area from the tops of pizza boxes? 

Mr. HALINSKI. I don’t believe we are, sir. 

Mr. MICA. How about discount bump advertisements to get a job 

at Reagan? Do you know? 

Mr. HALINSKI. Sir, we hire personnel through a variety of methods. And we vett those personnel. 

Mr. MICA. We have disclosed some of those in the past. The other 

thing, too, since you have been under some siege by Congress, this 

wasn’t just a Mica attack or a partisan attack from this side of the 

aisle. I came actually not as well prepared as the ranking member, 

who got you pretty good on the uniforms. 

But in fact, I know that you have ramped up your PR team. I 

want to know every penny you have been spending on communications, advertisement, et cetera. Can you get that information? We 

will give you a specific, by the end of the month. 

Mr. HALINSKI. Yes, sir. If that is a requirement, we will send you 

that information. 

Mr. MICA. Okay, thank you. I would like to see that. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and yield back. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you. 

28 

Mr. Halinski, thank you for your service. We appreciate your 

willingness to come testify today. The committee now stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:14 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

Æ