Government Executive - Authors - Mark Murray

FAA chief: Top agency challenges include security, management

Mark Murray — Tue, 11 Feb 2003 00:00:00 -0500

Last September, Marion Blakey became the new administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration after having served as chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board. Since September 11, most of the attention on aviation matters has focused on security, especially on the Transportation Security Administration, but the FAA still has to deal with many challenges-everything from the airlines' poor financial condition and longtime complaints about the agency's management, to the huge number of air traffic controllers who will be retiring in the coming years.

National Journal spoke with Blakey in mid-January about these challenges and on Feb. 3 conducted a follow-up interview about the Columbia space shuttle disaster. Edited excerpts from those interviews follow.

NJ: While America's space program obviously doesn't fall within the FAA's jurisdiction and responsibilities, is the FAA helping with the investigation into the loss of Columbia?

Blakey: NASA and the FAA have worked together for a long time-especially in researching aviation safety and aircraft technology-and we stand ready to give whatever help they might need. In the wake of this tragedy, we have provided available radar data to NASA and others, as well as our expertise on how the debris field might have dispersed. Steve Wallace, our director of accident investigations, is a member of the independent investigation board, and I expect we'll be lending more of our people and expertise in the weeks and months to come.

NJ: Does the accident have any implications for the FAA and its future responsibilities? What kinds of things can the FAA do to prevent tragedies like this?

Blakey: Before we talk about implications or preventing future tragedies, we need to know what happened first. My experience with the NTSB tells me it will take some time to determine the probable root cause and how to fix it. And I know that Administrator [Sean] O'Keefe and NASA are absolutely committed to doing just that.

In addition to helping with the investigation, we'll be watching its progress and outcome with great interest. Some may not know that the FAA has an important role in regulating and ensuring the safety of the commercial space industry. The investigation may very well result in a number of lessons learned that we can apply to commercial space activity to make it safer. And, once again, to go back to my NTSB experience, that is the only remotely good thing that can come about from an accident. We learn and share information to make sure that the same tragedy doesn't happen again.

NJ: How are you settling into your new job?

Blakey: It is a better job than I had anticipated. For one thing, it is a very exciting time to be here at the FAA, given the state of the industry. The industry is truly in peril, and that puts added responsibility on the work that we are doing. Also, in the long run it offers opportunities to shape what the aviation system of the future will be like in regard to our responsibilities to ensure safety and improve capacity. I feel very lucky to be in this job.

NJ: Since 9/11, the public seems to be focused on airport security, a responsibility that was taken away from the FAA and given to the new Transportation Security Administration. Is the public forgetting about some of the important challenges the FAA faces?

Blakey: When I said I feel very lucky in being in this job, I feel lucky as well because the FAA has been given a bit of a breather. As you know, we have been the focus so very often on Capitol Hill. And if there's a hiccup in the system, it can become a big news story. When everyone is focused on any irregularity, it does certainly siphon energy and take a great deal of time to continue to respond to issues-whether they are big or small.

Even though the responsibility for security has shifted to the TSA, we still have the responsibility for the safety of the system, and often those two things are inextricably linked. And when something goes wrong, you don't know initially what the problem is-is it something mechanical, operational, or criminal? Plus, we have the regulatory authority, so if the cockpit doors are going to be hardened, we're the ones who are going to have to certify them, see that the design changes are made, and see that the implementation goes smoothly.

NJ: At the NTSB, your job was to investigate aviation accidents and prod the FAA to implement specific safety improvements. As a result, there was often some natural tension between these two agencies. How is it now, playing for the other team?

Blakey: The funny thing is, I've not looked at it that way. For one thing, I come to this with a strong safety background and safety portfolio from my previous work at the NTSB and at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. I look at the FAA and the NTSB as being on the same team, because the goal is advancing safety. Certainly, the NTSB has a watchdog role there, and I do think that the NTSB gets it right most of the time. By prodding and pushing for safety advances, I think they challenge us to do our best over here.

NJ: Isn't the difference between the NTSB and the FAA that it's easier to recommend something than to test and implement it?

Blakey: I think that's exactly right. You have a very smart group of engineers, scientists, and pilots at NTSB. But there are only about 450 of them. And they are certainly in no position to deal with the operational reality and the research requirements that a number of the recom- mendations entail. It is one thing to say, "We should"; it's another thing to actually be able to come to grips with what is going to have to happen to make it work. That's our job at the FAA. And sometimes it's an issue of doing a cost-benefit analysis and trying to justify what is supposed to be a costly new enterprise.

NJ: This year, Congress will be reauthorizing the major aviation funding programs. What are the administration's priorities?

Blakey: I think that what we are looking for out of the bill is sharpening this agency's focus on the two imperatives that we have at this point. As you know, the FAA's mandate over time has changed. At one point, security was part of our focus. At one point, industry promotion was seen as very important. But right now we have a very clear imperative to increase safety and improve the capacity in our overall aviation system, both in the air and on the ground. So the bill is going to be focused in those two areas, and we are looking for the ways that we can allocate what are very scarce resources right now.

What we have to do is make sure that we are using those resources cost-effectively. And that's what I think some of the proposed changes that you'll see in the bill will do. In addition, we'll be looking at the streamlining requirements with regard to airport infrastructure and the amount of time it takes to build it. We're not looking to diminish the analysis that you have to do from an environmental standpoint, but we want to do it more efficiently. There are frequent situations where you have no particular opposition to a building project, but it still takes an inordinate length of time.

NJ: Critics have often referred to the FAA as a dysfunctional agency. What specific steps are you taking to make the FAA more functional?

Blakey: I think the FAA has been steadily improving, and I think we are seeing that in terms of the work that we're doing to really have a performance-based organization that is driven by metrics, that's driven by data. I think that a lot of the FAA's previous problems continue to create a hangover for us, and do not reflect what the current approach here is.

I think we have to be a lot more consistent. As I talk to people about the FAA, whether it's about certification or inspections, we are not consistent enough. It needs to be an organization where you get the same answer whether you ask one regional office or another; where the approach is the same in Los Angeles as it is in New York. I also believe it's important that we be very driven by performance measures right down to the individual member of the FAA-so people know what they are being held accountable for, and why.

NJ: The General Accounting Office has mentioned that a significant number of air traffic controllers will retire over the next few years. What are you doing at the FAA to alleviate any problem this might cause?

Blakey: We are looking very much at the question of projecting when the retirements will actually occur. This is all happening, of course, because the PATCO [Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization] strike caused a major hiring bubble in the early `80s, so there will be a period of several years when we are likely to see significant retirements. Our plan at this point is to increase the overall number of controllers we will have at that stage, because there does have to be overlap between our veterans who will be passing the baton and younger controllers. We're looking at the question of training. How are we doing our training now? Is it sufficient? Are there ways we can improve it? And should we be requiring other kinds of education backgrounds and looking at the private sector?

NJ: Is there anything else you'd like to address?

Blakey: I believe that one of the things I really need to work on at this agency is our role in the international sector. The FAA needs to put much greater energy behind our leadership vis-a-vis the international aviation community on issues of safety, technology, approaches, and standards. The United States has to abide by much higher standards in terms of safety, and I think a stronger international focus will help American carriers compete in the global market.

]]>

Transportation security agency's progress uneven

Mark Murray — Mon, 12 Aug 2002 00:00:00 -0400

Most aviation experts agree that the nation's airport security is much better than it was before September 11. And a year from now, they say, it will be much better than it is today. But the system is certainly not perfect today-and unfortunately, it never will be.

One of the government's first post-9/11 actions was creating the Transportation Security Administration last November to supervise security for the nation's airways, railways, roadways, and waterways. Because of the difficult airport security deadlines it faces later this year, however, the TSA has spent most of its energy and resources on aviation.

The new agency, originally placed within the Transportation Department, has been on a constant bureaucratic roller-coaster ride. In July, its chief, John W. Magaw, was forced to resign after complaints over lack of progress in meeting deadlines and over his poor communication with Congress and aviation interests. Adm. James M. Loy, the former commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard, has replaced Magaw. In addition, it's quite likely that the TSA will move from the Transportation Department into the new Department of Homeland Security.

While experts give the TSA high marks for its attempts to bolster security, they say the agency has come up short in many areas. For example, government tests show that screeners are still allowing too many prohibited items to get past airport security checkpoints. The TSA has also been criticized for moving too slowly in implementing two key provisions of last year's airport security legislation: federalizing the workforce of screeners, and meeting the deadline to screen all passenger bags through explosive-detection machines.

But those shortcomings aren't entirely the TSA's fault. The deadlines and standards that Congress set for the agency were ambitious and unprecedented. As James K. Coyne, president of the National Air Transportation Association, put it, "They're trying to pass a course that no one can pass."

Cockpit Doors

Immediately after the September 11 attacks, the Federal Aviation Administration established a rule mandating that the airlines secure their cockpit doors, through either a deadbolt lock or a steel bar. That, however, was just a stopgap measure. In January, the FAA passed another emergency rule, which required the airlines to install bulletproof-even grenade-proof-cockpit doors by April 2003.

Yet things got off to a slow start. Peggy Gilligan, the FAA's deputy associate administrator for regulation and certification, says initial door designs created pressurization problems in the cabin. But that was eventually solved, and the FAA has approved designs for some of the major Boeing and Airbus models. Gilligan says that installation of these doors has finally begun.

But not everyone is optimistic that the deadline will be met. Michael Wascom, spokesman for the Air Transport Association, which represents the major air carriers, says that the models certified by the FAA account for only about one-third of the fleet of ATA member companies. With the deadline approaching, he said, the delay in certification "has greatly reduced the time available to install these essential upgrades."

Another problem is the cost of the hardened doors, which is estimated to be from $30,000 to $50,000 each. The airlines have complained that the government hasn't given them enough money for the installation. Despite these worries, the FAA's Gilligan says that the deadline will be met. "We are not only optimistic," she said. "We are sure."

Air Marshals

This is the one security effort that has seen the most progress. On September 11, the number of federal air marshals stood at fewer than 50. Today, their ranks have exploded to a reported 2,000; however, the Transportation Department maintains that the actual number is classified. Air marshals receive 12 to 15 weeks of training-in airports, at firing ranges, and inside practice aircraft-and they have the highest shooting qualification standards of all law enforcement agencies.

At a recent congressional hearing, Michael P. Jackson, the Transportation Department's deputy secretary, said that the department had established an ambitious goal in November to expand the air marshal program, and that the target is being met. "We have nailed those goals to the wall," he said.

Despite this apparent progress and the air marshals' impressive shooting skills, one glaring shortcoming remains: There still aren't enough marshals. Indeed, these marshals-who usually work in pairs or in groups of three or more-ride on just a fraction of the nation's 35,000 daily flights. And that's one reason why many in Congress and the aviation community have pushed to allow pilots to carry guns in the cockpit.

Baggage Screening

Just two months after the airport security bill was signed into law, the TSA had to meet its first big deadline: to be screening all passenger bags by January 18, 2002. Despite Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta's doubts about whether the TSA could meet that goal-after all, the airlines had been screening fewer than 5 percent of bags before the law's passage-the job got done through a hodgepodge of methods, such as positive bag-matches, bomb-sniffing dogs, and screening by hand.

But the TSA now faces a tougher deadline: to ensure that all bags are being checked through explosive-detection systems (EDS) or trace-detection machines by December 31. To meet this goal, the TSA will need to deploy 1,100 EDS and 6,000 trace machines. The Transportation Department's inspector general has noted that such an effort has never been attempted: It represents three times the amount of such equipment currently deployed at airports worldwide. As of July 9, only 215 of the EDS machines and 273 of the trace machines were in use.

Airports must be reconfigured to fit the SUV-sized EDS machines, a job that costs time and money. And operating the labor-intensive trace machines will require a checked-baggage workforce of 21,600, which could crowd airport lobbies and cause delays. Consequently, most observers don't believe the TSA will meet the deadline. "They are a year away," said one transportation lobbyist. "I don't think the equipment will be in place" by December 31.

The good news for the TSA is that the House extended this deadline by up to a year in its recently passed Homeland Security Department bill. Whether that extension becomes law, however, is still anyone's guess.

Passenger Screening

Despite the intense scrutiny on airport screening, the system still has plenty of holes. From November to February, the DOT inspector general's office conducted tests at 32 airports and discovered that screeners failed to detect knives, guns, and explosives in 48 percent of the tests. In another round of tests the TSA conducted in June, screeners still failed to find these prohibited items 24 percent of the time.

The administration, however, has been quick to counter that the screening workforce in those tests hadn't yet been federalized; in most cases, the screeners who failed these tests were the same ones who were working before September 11. That is correct. The airport security legislation that was signed into law last fall transferred control of the screening workforce from the airlines to the federal government. Under the law, the TSA must hire and deploy this workforce-which is estimated to be 33,000 screeners and managers-by November 19, 2002.

Unfortunately, the TSA has been moving slowly. As of July 13, it had hired, trained, and deployed only 2,475 screeners, just a fraction of the workforce it envisions. To meet its goal, the TSA will have to hire and train more than 7,600 screeners per month over the next four months. Yet according to Mineta, the plan that DOT created to federalize this workforce was designed to begin slowly, and it was understood that most of the hires would come later in the process. In fact, the TSA says it has already hired 8,000 screeners. "We are on schedule," Mineta recently told Congress.

Crew Training/Worker Security

Before September 11, terrorists had hijacked planes only to get to a foreign country (such as Cuba), or to negotiate for something they desired (such as release of prisoners). But the concept of a hijacking changed when terrorists took control of American airliners and slammed them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Not surprisingly, pilots and flight attendants have begun to rethink their approach to hijackings. Duane E. Woerth, president of the Air Line Pilots Association, says that the pilots, flight attendants, and airlines have worked together to develop a "common strategy" to respond to future suicide hijackings. For security reasons, he won't reveal the specifics, but Woerth explains that the strategy involves enhancing communication among the pilots, flight attendants, and air marshals.

But according to Patricia Friend, president of the Association of Flight Attendants, not enough has been done on the training front, particularly when it comes to flight attendants. While the airport security legislation addressed flight-attendant training, Friend says the language wasn't specific enough to improve things. She argues that in some cases airlines have offered only two or three hours of additional training, and that "under the current system, we are no better prepared to fight off an attacker in the cabin than we were on September 11, and that is unacceptable." The Association of Flight Attendants is currently supporting legislation in Congress that would set detailed requirements for cabin crew training programs.

The TSA has mandated that all airport workers with access to secure areas undergo criminal background checks. Having committed any of some 30-odd crimes will disqualify workers from employment. The TSA has until November to complete these checks, although the agency says that most of them are already completed.

But Friend finds plenty of holes in the system. She explains that because many airports have employee entrances that provide access to the gates and lobbies, anyone who can get inside the employee entrance has access to the entire airport. Because there are no magnetometers at the employee entrances, she said, people can show up with a photo ID, but "no one knows what they are carrying."

On the other hand, some airline employees complain they are subjected to the same random searches and checkpoints that all passengers must go through-even though these employees have undergone background checks and have keys to the cockpits. Such indiscriminate searching is "ridiculous," said Woerth. "We treat every citizen as [a threat equal] to Mohamed Atta." The Air Line Pilots Association and several airlines have been pushing the TSA to introduce some sort of a universal ID card for airline employees that would incorporate a retinal scan or fingerprint. The TSA has said it's considering the proposal.

General Aviation/Small Airports

The TSA has established a classified security program for general aviation operators. James Coyne, president of the National Air Transportation Association, which represents general aviation interests, says his industry has come up with its own security advice for operators in dealing with the airport, the aircraft, and the people in the planes. In addition, since September 11 general aviation operators have a heightened awareness about security.

Still, the government hasn't been paying much attention to general aviation. In testimony before the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, the General Accounting Office noted that the TSA has set only a few guidelines for GA security. Coyne doesn't think it should be that big a priority, noting that the teenager who flew his plane into a skyscraper in Tampa, Fla., in January didn't do much damage. "I don't think people feel that GA is a significant threat," he said.

In addition to America's 429 commercial airports, thousands of smaller airports and landing strips are scattered across the country. Because of the small size of these facilities, the federal government hasn't done much to improve their security. But after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, even these small strips do seem to have a new sense of awareness about security.

]]>

In transportation security, blame game is in full swing

Mark Murray — Fri, 02 Aug 2002 00:00:00 -0400

"The broad support for this bill shows that our country is united in this crisis," President Bush said when he signed the legislation into law. "We have our political differences, but we're united to defend our country, and we're united to protect our people. For our airways, there is one supreme priority: security."

But eight months later, this unity has become a political blame game. At two separate congressional hearings last week, the Bush administration faulted Congress for not giving the administration enough money to do the job. House Democrats blasted their Republican counterparts over a GOP effort to extend a key airport security deadline. And Congress, the airlines, and other aviation interests have continued to pillory the new Transportation Security Administration, contributing to the ouster of the agency's chief, John W. Magaw, in mid-July.

However, it shouldn't be surprising that airport security has turned into such a political food fight. After all, fighting is one of the things that Congress and presidential administrations do best.

"Assigning blame and finger-pointing is easy in Washington," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said last week at a Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee hearing.

Most understood that overhauling airport security wasn't going to be easy. In November, Congress passed legislation creating the Transportation Security Administration, which was placed inside the Transportation Department and assigned the task of providing security for the nation's airways, highways, waterways, and railways. The bill also required the TSA to scrap the old airport screening workforce run by the airlines and turn it into a federal one.

The legislation, moreover, set ambitious deadlines. It mandated the TSA to hire and deploy this federal screening workforce by November 19. And it required the agency to install thousands of explosive-detection machines to screen all passenger bags by December 31. Congress created these tough, arbitrary deadlines because it had become frustrated by the delays and inaction that resulted from its previous attempts over the past two decades to revamp airport security.

"We want those guys to move heaven and earth to get there," said Andy Davis, spokesman for Sen. Ernest F. Hollings, D-S.C., who played a key role in writing the legislation.

Yet at the congressional hearings last week, Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta maintained that the TSA cannot move heaven and earth without sufficient funding. Congress, he complained, had cut $1 billion from the $4.4 billion the agency requested in the recently passed $28.9 billion emergency supplemental appropriations bill. That measure also capped the TSA's total workforce at 45,000 for the rest of this fiscal year; Mineta says that the TSA will eventually need 67,000 workers.

Mineta warned that if the TSA doesn't receive the money and the workers it needs, it will have a hard time meeting the difficult deadlines that Congress has set.

"Give us the tools and the flexibility that we need to build this organization," he told the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Many members of Congress, however, didn't buy Mineta's argument. They noted that the Bush administration's Office of Management and Budget seemed quite happy to cut a sizable amount of the TSA spending to trim the overall supplemental package to $28.9 billion. Furthermore, nearly half of what Mineta was calling a cut-$480 million-was actually set aside in a contingency fund, and insiders say that this money would eventually be available to the TSA.

Still, one transportation lobbyist points out that Mineta's complaint about a lack of money was a smart move. "They know they aren't going to meet that [baggage] deadline," the lobbyist said. "And they have to find someone to blame."

Other finger-pointing was also going on last week. Because of doubts about TSA's ability to meet the December 31 baggage-screening deadline, House Republicans added a provision in the recently passed Department of Homeland Security legislation that could extend the deadline as much as a year for many airports. Airlines and airport groups have argued that placing bomb-detection machines-which are the size of sport-utility vehicles-inside the airports poses architectural problems. They have also noted that, as the TSA hurries to meet the deadline, the agency will have to resort to smaller (but more labor-intensive) explosive-trace machines, which will crowd airport lobbies and create long lines and waits.

"I think we are heading for a national embarrassment during the holiday season," said Kevin P. Mitchell, chairman of the Business Travel Coalition. "I don't think that three-hour check-ins will be an exaggeration."

But the move to extend the baggage deadline infuriated House Democrats. "This is an outrageous attempt to undo what we did last fall," said Rep. James L. Oberstar, D-Minn., ranking member of the Transportation Committee. Added Rep. Robert Menendez, D-N.J.: "God forbid we grant an extension and [later] there is a bombing on a plane. I want my baggage checked-now."

There's also a possible political angle to this particular dispute: As the November elections draw closer, Democrats will likely seek to score points on the deadline extension by portraying the GOP as soft on airport security. Indeed, Democratic National Committee spokesman Bill Buck noted that with this extension, the Republicans seemed to be putting the concerns of the airports and airlines "over the safety of the American flying public."

In addition to the blame games over funding and the baggage-screening deadline, the TSA has increasingly become a punching bag for its critics. Congress and aviation interests have complained that the new agency has failed to communicate with them and has moved too slowly to meet its deadlines. Moreover, many were disappointed that the TSA ruled against the proposal allowing pilots to carry guns in the cockpit and also against plans to introduce a "trusted-traveler" card that would help frequent fliers move quicker through security checkpoints.

All of that criticism made it easier for Mineta to fire TSA Director Magaw on July 18. Capt. Duane E. Woerth, president of the Air Line Pilots Association, contends that Magaw was a disaster. "So many projects were lost in the bureaucracy of the TSA," he said.

Mineta replaced Magaw with Adm. James M. Loy, who had served as commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard. Insiders say that Loy has already developed a quality that his predecessor lacked: good relations with Congress.

"He clearly knows how to handle the congressional side of things," said airport lobbyist Todd Hauptli. In fact, at his appearance before the Senate Commerce Committee last week, Loy told senators that he would communicate better with the airlines and airports than Magaw did. Loy also announced that he'll take another look at the issues of guns in the cockpit and the trusted-traveler plan.

During all the finger-pointing at the hearings last week, however, no one took a more brutal beating than Mineta. On the House side, Rep. Peter A. DeFazio, D-Ore., skewered the secretary for trying to deflect criticism by first firing Magaw and then by blaming appropriators.

"This is unbelievable to me," DeFazio said. "I'm just really upset at your performance here today."

Meanwhile, over in the Senate, Ron Wyden, D-Ore., argued that Magaw's firing didn't reflect well on Mineta. "It clearly does not send a message that the administration is on top of this issue," he said. Wyden also attacked Mineta over recent reports about airport security breaches.

Unfortunately for Mineta, with the key deadlines just months away, things aren't going to get any easier. The TSA is supposed to deploy an estimated 33,000 federal screeners and supervisors by November 19. Yet according to the Transportation Department's inspector general, the TSA had trained and deployed only 2,500 screeners as of July 13. With less than four months left, the TSA will need to hire and train more than 7,600 per month to meet the deadline. (The agency, however, says it has already hired nearly 8,000 screeners.)

In addition, the TSA needs to deploy an estimated 1,100 explosive-detection (EDS) machines and 6,000 trace systems to meet the December 31 baggage-screening deadline. But as of July 9, only 215 EDS and 273 trace machines were in use at airports.

The good news for Mineta is that the TSA won't be his responsibility forever, because Congress is working diligently to move the agency next year into the proposed Homeland Security Department. Still, Mineta and the TSA have a lot of work to do to meet the upcoming deadlines.

As McCain explained last week, "The road ahead is likely to be even rougher than the one already traveled." And if that's the case, expect the blame game to continue.

]]>

Air marshals train to tackle terrorism

Mark Murray — Tue, 04 Jun 2002 00:00:00 -0400

Two passengers from first class sprang up. Brandishing pistols, they yelled at the terrorist to put the knife down, and when he didn't, they fired, knocking him to the floor. Then they held him down and handcuffed him, screaming, "Police, don't move!" They ordered the other passengers to put their hands on their heads and looked over the cabin, guns poised, until they were satisfied that the threat was over.

Fortunately, this situation wasn't real. It was an exercise on a grounded wide-body Delta L-1011 at the Federal Air Marshal training facility here, on May 16. The terrorist was an actor; the ammunition was paint balls; dummies occupied most of the seats, and the only passengers were a handful of reporters, invited by the Transportation Department to observe air marshal training exercises.

The message from the Transportation Department was obvious: Skilled air marshals-not pilots armed with guns-should be the last line of defense aboard commercial airliners. In fact, just five days after these exercises, Transportation Security Administration Director John Magaw announced the department's decision to bar pilots from carrying guns.

"It's clear in my mind, when I weigh all of the pros and cons, pilots should not have firearms in the cockpit," Magaw told the Senate Commerce Committee on May 21. "If something does happen on that plane, they really need to be in control of that aircraft, whether it's getting it on the ground, [or] whether it's maneuvering it so it knocks people off balance that are causing the problem."

Yet by inviting reporters to view the air marshal training program, the Transportation Department also sent another message: The department has become much more shrewd in delivering controversial policy decisions. Congress passed the airport security legislation last November. Ever since then, Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta and his department have received a tremendous amount of scrutiny over the deadlines they must meet to comply with that law (such as installing bomb-detection systems at all U.S. airports by December 31, 2002) and the policy decisions they must make (such as whether pilots can carry handguns and whether airport security screeners can join a union).

Indeed, Mineta found himself in a firestorm of criticism last fall when he candidly remarked that his department might not be able to meet a January deadline to begin checking 100 percent of passenger bags. (As it turned out, the department did meet that deadline.) But in May, by demonstrating to the press exactly how skilled and well-trained its air marshals are, Transportation was deftly making its case that these marshals are the best last line of defense in the air.

Transportation also invited the press to witness these marshals' skills at the firing range. In one drill, a group of trainees stood 15 yards from their targets. After a signal sounded, each trainee fired two shots to the chest and one to the head, reloaded, and fired another two shots to the chest and one to the head-all in just a few seconds. The instructors were proud to tell the press that the air marshals have the highest shooting qualification standards of all law enforcement agencies. "We are going to stop the threat," said one senior instructor. "That is our rule of engagement."

Despite their impressive shooting skills, air marshals do have one noticeable shortcoming: There simply aren't enough of them. While the number of marshals stood at fewer than 50 before September 11, that figure has since exploded to a reported 2,000 (the Transportation Department maintains that the actual number is classified). But even with this increase, air marshals-who usually work in pairs or in groups of three or more-still sit on just a fraction of the nation's 35,000 daily flights.

And for that reason, many members of Congress believe that armed pilots are a much better last line of defense. Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., introduced legislation that would reverse the Transportation Department's decision and allow pilots to carry guns. Burns points out that in publicized aviation incidents since September 11 (such as the attempt by suspected terrorist Richard Reid to blow up an American Airlines flight in December), air marshals were nowhere to be found, and it was passengers and flight attendants who actually subdued the threat. "We place our lives in the hands of pilots every time we board a flight," Burns said, "so it only makes sense that we provide them with the tools and options they need to safely and effectively do their job."

Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, also has a bill in his committee that would reverse the department's recent decision. "We now face a possible situation where the Department of Defense may be forced to make the difficult decision of having our own Air Force shoot down a plane of innocent passengers due to a terrorist takeover," he said. "I strongly believe that under these new circumstances, we must allow trained and qualified pilots to serve as the last line of defense against such a potential disaster."

The Air Line Pilots Association, which supports arming pilots, says that there are other reasons why pilots should be the last line of defense. For example, it notes, armed pilots can do one thing that air marshals cannot: defend the aircraft from inside the cockpit. In addition, the association maintains that installation of enhanced cockpit doors on U.S. airliners will not be completed until April 2003.

But air marshal officials contend that their numbers are much higher than most people think, and while they aren't on board every flight, the threat of their presence is a deterrent. "Part of what we are trying to do is keep our adversaries guessing," said Greg McLaughlin, deputy director of the Federal Air Marshal Service. "I will guarantee you that they know we exist, and they don't want to run into us at high altitudes."

Moreover, the administration, the airlines, and several members of Congress contend that bringing more guns onto a plane doesn't make much sense. How safe will it be for thousands of pilots to carry firearms inside American airports? What happens if those guns get into the wrong hands? And can pilots be proficient and judicious enough if they have to use them? "We have cited the unintended consequences of arming pilots with firearms and the potential dangers posed to innocent passengers and crew members," said Michael Wascom, a spokesman for the Air Transport Association, a trade group representing the major U.S. airlines. "The fortified cockpits, combined with the air marshals, provide adequate onboard protection."

Indeed, there are plenty of doubts about the quality of training that pilots would receive. The air marshal training program, for instance, lasts between 12 and 15 weeks, six of them spent at the proving grounds in Atlantic City, the rest in airports and with U.S. airlines. By comparison, the Air Line Pilots Association says it envisions a firearms training program for pilots that would last only four or five days, with annual proficiency training.

Although the Transportation Department doesn't want pilots to carry guns, it is currently deliberating whether to allow pilots and flight attendants to wield less-than-lethal weapons, such as tasers and stun guns. According to one aviation lobbyist who wished to remain anonymous, these weapons make much more sense than guns for pilots and flight attendants because they don't inflict irreversible harm. Nevertheless, there are some concerns about these less-than-lethal weapons. "If managed properly, these can be great tools," said Geoffrey Alpert, a criminology professor at the University of South Carolina. "That said, every one of these technologies, if not used properly, can be very harmful, and all have the potential for abuse."

But for now, it seems, air marshals will serve as the last line of defense on American airplanes-and to quell other types of disturbances. For example, during another exercise aboard the Delta L-1011, an actor playing a drunken passenger harassed a flight attendant-"Flight attendant, grab me a drink.... Come on, wench. I told you, one every five minutes"-and then began to assault her.

A man jumped up, identified himself as an air marshal, and told the passenger to stop his abusive behavior. Ignored, the marshal seized the drunk, threw him to the floor, and handcuffed him. For transportation reporters unaccustomed to this kind of excitement and violence at work, it was an impressive sight.

National Journal staff correspondent Louis Jacobson contributed to this article.

]]>

Airport security has nowhere to go but up, experts say

Mark Murray — Mon, 15 Apr 2002 00:00:00 -0400

Those stunning statistics, first reported last month by USA Today, came from a confidential inspector general's audit of 32 American airports conducted from November to early February. Of course, that was before the new Transportation Security Administration took over screening responsibilities on February 17, as mandated by the airport security legislation that was signed into law last year. Nevertheless, the study screamed out an obvious point: The government has a lot of work to do to improve airport security. Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta acknowledged as much in a recent interview with CNN. "This is going to be a continuing work in progress," he said.

But for pragmatists, the screening study also underscored another point: No matter what kind of improvements the government eventually makes, the airport security system will never be foolproof. Each year, 650 million people travel by plane in this country, going through 429 commercial airports. The airline industry makes money by getting those passengers to their destinations as quickly as possible. And perhaps most important, technological and financial resources for improving security are limited.

"The security system is better now than it was six months ago. And six months from now, it will be better than it is today," said David A. Fuscus, president of Xenophon Strategies, a firm specializing in crisis communications for U.S. commercial airlines. "But 650 million people use the air transportation system, and we'll never be able to [reach] 100 percent on all levels of security."

As the TSA transforms airport screeners into higher-paid federal employees, it plans to conduct similar tests in the future to evaluate their progress. Yet given these two facts--that airport screening must improve, and that it will never be perfect--the question that transportation policy makers must answer is: How are we going to measure success? In other words, exactly how secure does our airport security system need to be?

Darryl Moody, a TSA program manager who's on loan from his job at KPMG Consulting, takes a stab at that difficult question. He explains that the agency is currently taking basic measurements of the effectiveness of every aspect of the screening process: Was each screening task done or not? Was it done in accordance with standard operating procedure? Were the screeners who were performing each task certified to do them? And if a metal detector alarm went off, was the situation resolved appropriately? "All of these things will be measured in some way," he said.

"If we do all of these things [well], then it will be as secure as we can almost humanly get."

But Moody argues that it's impossible to come up with a numerical benchmark for success. "Any number that could be provided right now would be a goal, but not a well-educated goal," he said. Yet he guesses that once the federal government's security system is up and running and is staffed with sharp and alert employees, screeners will be able to catch 80 or 90 percent of all weapons. And, he admits, "that's probably as good as it's going to get."

Moody points out, however, that the screening process is just one of several "rings of defense" that make up the airport security system. One ring is the reservations process (where the task is to identify passengers); another is the baggage screening system (which should detect explosives in luggage); and the final ring is the air marshals (who should forcibly stop any terrorist who boards a plane). Once all those rings are working well, Moody explains, you can get as close as possible to 100 percent security. "That is the goal-that there are no successful disruptions or harm done to the aviation system."

For other aviation experts, though, the real goal isn't 100 percent security--it's 100 percent deterrence. A system that allows 50 percent of weapons to pass through security obviously invites future terrorist attacks. But by reducing the percentage, say to 20 percent, you reduce that vulnerability, especially if there are other deterrents in place, such as air marshals and fortified cockpit doors. "It will never be a perfect system," said James Burnley, who served as Transportation secretary during the Reagan administration. "But where the deterrence factor is high, you will [stop] terrorists."

Some critics, however, believe that the screening system provides neither safety nor deterrence, and they don't expect much improvement. Michael J. Boyd, an aviation consultant based in Colorado, says the problem is that the same bureaucrats who ran the old security regime under the Federal Aviation Administration are now running the TSA. "We can never be perfect, but we can be a lot better than we are now," he argued. "We don't have better security because the people who are running the security aren't better. They are the same."

Other critics note that the TSA's policy of applying the same screening standards for all passengers--from 80-year-old grandmothers to suspected terrorists such as Richard Reid--is wrongheaded. "That is a recipe for disaster, and we need to get past that," said Robert W. Poole Jr., a transportation expert at the Reason Foundation, a conservative think tank. Poole says that instead of this one-size-fits-all approach, we need a screening system that would divide passengers into three groups: trusted travelers (frequent flyers, who would need little scrutiny), occasional travelers (who would face current screening standards), and suspicious travelers (who would undergo a greater level of scrutiny). This three-tiered system, according to Poole, would better allocate screening resources.

But Burnley, the former Transportation secretary, is more optimistic about the TSA's ability to improve the system. He contends that it's too early to pass judgment; in fact, the TSA employees who will be training the new federal screening workforce just began their own training last month. "Very little time has passed.... They are moving with all the speed they can to build up a workforce," Burnley said. "The jury should still be out on how they are doing."

The TSA certainly believes that security is getting better. "We are collecting more items, we are turning away more people, we are shortening the wait, and we are improving the customer-satisfaction levels," said TSA spokesman Jonathan Thompson. "We are seeing results already."

But however one measures the effectiveness of current airport security--and the capacity for improving it--the inspector general's audit makes one thing clear: There's certainly nowhere to go but up.

]]>

Baggage screener unionization issue still up in the air

Mark Murray — Fri, 22 Mar 2002 00:00:00 -0500

In the end, of course, the forces for federalization triumphed. After the September 11 terrorist attacks, critics assailed America's private-sector airport screeners, who experienced high job turnover and earned salaries that hovered just above the minimum wage. By federalizing the nation's 30,000 airport screeners, Congress ostensibly created a better-paid and better-trained workforce.

But contrary to conventional wisdom, there are growing concerns that these screeners might not be wearing the union label. To increase the support for the final airport security bill, congressional negotiators didn't mandate many of the screeners' benefits and conditions of employment, such as whether they could unionize or receive whistleblower protection. Instead, the legislation left these matters up to the discretion of Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta.

On March 4, Mineta said that he had not made up his mind about the unionization issue, but his deputy, Michael P. Jackson, told reporters last month that the department is working hard on the matter. "It's a very high priority," Jackson noted.

Judging from the Bush administration's past decisions regarding organized labor, union officials and Democrats on the Hill say they wouldn't be surprised if the Transportation Department ends up prohibiting the unionization of airport screeners. In fact, in his first few months in office, Bush made several decisions that went against organized labor--whose leaders sided with Democrats in the 2000 election. He signed legislation that repealed ergonomics regulations; intervened to halt a mechanics' strike against Northwest Airlines; and issued an executive order making it harder for unions to use their members' dues for political purposes. Lately, though, Bush has showed signs of warming toward some unions. Most notably, he and the Teamsters have worked together on trying to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil exploration, and the Steelworkers have praised the president for imposing tariffs on steel imports.

"Our great concern is that they will find a way to exclude the 30,000 screeners from the right to form a union and bargain collectively," said Beth Moten, the legislative director for the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents approximately 600,000 federal and District of Columbia workers. "And if they do so, it'll be for political reasons."

Mineta's role provides an interesting subplot to this unionization debate. The sole Democrat in the Bush Cabinet, Mineta was a proponent of organized labor during his 20-year tenure as a House member from California. When he agreed to join the Bush administration, he struck a deal with President Bush that allows him to speak his mind on transportation issues privately to the president and within the administration. But Mineta also knows that the president has the final say.

"I am the Secretary of Transportation, but I'm also staff to the President of the United States," he told National Journal in January. "And once the decisions are made, we all salute and carry things out."

Labor advocates have also been upset at the Transportation Department's recent announcement that it would not grant full whistleblower protection to the airport screeners, because of concerns that a whistleblower's actions could potentially compromise sensitive security operations. Mineta, however, said that the department was working on some sort of hybrid protection that would not harm security. "We are going to be tailor-making some kind of whistleblower protection" for this security workforce, he said.

Union leaders argue that denying screeners union rights and full whistleblower protection contradicts the goal of creating a better screening workforce. The lack of these benefits, they say, might make it more difficult to attract and retain screeners, even though they will be earning more money as federal employees. "The workers have fewer rights than they did prior to the bill," said Jono Schaffer, the director of security organizing at the Service Employees International Union. "It's just absurd."

In fact, under the old security system, the SEIU represented about 2,000 screeners--who will no longer be union members if the Transportation Department sides against unionization. "What the administration will have done is take advantage of this law to disenfranchise people who previously had the right to unionize," Moten said.

Edward Wytkind, the executive director of the AFL-CIO's transportation trades department, is more optimistic that Mineta will allow screeners to join a union. "We're working for it, and we expect that workers will be treated with dignity."

But because of the rhetoric and the assumptions about unionization that came from Armey and others during the fight in Congress over airport security, Wytkind says he's surprised that the unionization of screeners is even in doubt. "Everyone finds it kind of bizarre that we would even be debating this," he said.

]]>

Transportation Secretary occupies an unlikely space: center stage

Mark Murray — Mon, 14 Jan 2002 00:00:00 -0500

Suddenly, at 8:55 a.m., Mineta's chief of staff, John Flaherty, walked into the conference room. "Mr. Secretary and Administrator Garvey, may I see you?" Mineta stared at Flaherty, silently reminding his chief of staff that he was interrupting a formal diplomatic meeting. Mineta and Garvey excused themselves and left the room, and then Flaherty told the Secretary the news that would profoundly change his job and the role of his department: a plane had just crashed into the World Trade Center.

When Mineta walked back into the conference room to say that he would have to conclude the meeting, Durant knew that something horrible had happened. "I saw on the face of Mr. Mineta that it was terrible [news]," she said in an interview. Garvey raced to the nearby FAA building, while Mineta and Flaherty hurried to the Secretary's office to monitor developments. Minutes later, the two men saw the second plane smash into the trade center.

Before September 11, those Americans who were aware that Mineta was Transportation Secretary probably knew little more about him than one or two novel facts: He was the sole Democrat in the Bush Cabinet, and he was a Japanese-American who had spent part of his childhood in a World War II-era internment camp. Mineta had been dealing mostly with issues such as aircraft noise, Amtrak's budget woes, and whether Mexican trucks should be allowed to operate in the United States; he also filled in as a first-base coach during T-ball games on the White House South Lawn.

But since September 11, Mineta has figured prominently in some of the nation's biggest stories--the unprecedented two-day shutdown of the aviation system; the fight over the controversial airport security bill; the beefing up of security at the nation's ports and railways; and the creation of a transportation security agency. His press conferences, which used to be attended only by transportation industry journalists and a handful of other writers, now include reporters from ABC and CNN. Last month, Mineta appeared on CBS's 60 Minutes to discuss his opposition to racial profiling at airports.

In fact, in terms of the media exposure received by Cabinet members, Mineta ranks behind only Donald Rumsfeld at Defense, Colin L. Powell at State, and John D. Ashcroft at Justice. "Because of September 11, Secretary Mineta--on an ongoing basis--is certainly the most visible Secretary in the history of the department," said James H. Burnley, who served as Transportation Secretary during the Reagan Administration.

Mineta has received much praise in his post-September 11 role. "I think he has done a fantastic job so far," said Jack Schenendorf, who headed this Administration's transportation transition team. Even President Bush has publicly praised Mineta. "I picked a good man in Norm Mineta, who is rising to the occasion," the President said when he signed the aviation security legislation on November 19.

Yet Mineta is also discovering a truth about life in the spotlight: The brighter the glare, the more noticeable the blemishes. In recent weeks, pundits and members of Congress have pilloried Mineta for some of his statements. Columnist Frank Rich of The New York Times attacked him for admitting that the Transportation Department might not meet a 60-day deadline to begin screening all checked baggage for explosives. "Give Mr. Mineta credit for candor," Rich wrote, "but he might as well have just painted a big target on the back of the nation's commercial airline system."

In an interview with National Journal, Mineta said that when he accepted his Cabinet post, he had no idea of the challenges he would face, the long hours he would have to work, and the criticism he would receive. Mineta, 70, recalled what Rodney Slater, President Clinton's Transportation Secretary, had told him about the position: "He said, `It's a great, great job. You'll really enjoy it. It's a snap.' "

But Mineta's first year has hardly been a snap. He even had to check himself into a hospital to deal with a persistent nosebleed, which some observers suggest was caused by his nonstop work. "I don't think any other Secretary since the formation of the department has had to face anything of this proportion," Mineta said. "September 11 turned the world upside down."

Government's Worst--and Finest--Hour

According to many observers, September 11 represented a failure in government. Our intelligence community failed to detect the plot. Our immigration system failed to keep the terrorists from entering the United States. And our aviation system failed to keep them from boarding U.S. airliners and storming their cockpits. Yet September 11 also offered an instance of the federal government performing at its best: the shutdown of the aviation system.

After the second plane hit the World Trade Center, Mineta rushed to the White House's operations center, where he joined Vice President Dick Cheney and other top officials, and stayed in constant contact with Garvey and other advisers at the FAA. Then, at 9:43 a.m., a third hijacked airliner slammed into the Pentagon. Moments later, with no idea how many other hijacked planes might be in the sky, Mineta gave the order to halt all air traffic. "When one of something occurs, it's an accident," Mineta has said many times. "When two of the same thing occurs, it's a pattern. And when three of the same thing occurs, it's a program."

Thus began the first complete shutdown of the U.S. aviation system. Nearly 5,000 commercial and private planes were in the sky that Tuesday morning, but within the shutdown's first four minutes, air traffic controllers directed 700 planes to land. In the next 54 minutes, another 2,800 planes reached the ground, and by 12:16 p.m., the entire U.S. airspace was clear of civilian traffic. "The clearest image in my mind," Garvey said, "is standing in the FAA operations center and watching--watching that wonderful electronic map of the United States showing all the airborne aircraft, thousands of airplanes, and then fewer and fewer and fewer, and finally the map went blank."

The shutdown also illustrated the bureaucratic chain of command working as designed. Garvey and FAA acting Deputy Administrator Monte Belger were able to give Mineta all the information necessary to make his decision. "We were in constant communication with him," Garvey recalled. "We were very much working together."

The smooth shutdown owed some of its success to the recent battles over airline delays and congestion. In March 2000, in an effort to combat congestion in the skies, the FAA gave more air traffic control authority to its command center in Herndon, Va. And on September 11 during the grounding of the 5,000 airplanes, that center became an information clearinghouse. "I have to really underscore ... the role the command center played," Garvey said. "Being able to funnel that information through to the command center, and the command center being able to hook into all of the dispatchers throughout the country, was critical."

Although shutting down the system was hardly a simple task, it was perhaps the easiest one Mineta and the department faced in the first few days after the attacks. Next, they had to develop a whole host of new airport security measures, such as banning small knives and curbside check-ins. Then, with thousands of passengers stranded and with airlines and cargo carriers losing millions of dollars following the grounding of their planes, they worked to restart the aviation system, which occurred on Thursday, September 13. After that, Mineta and his team struggled to reopen Reagan Washington National Airport. The National Security Council and the Secret Service, citing potential security threats, opposed the reopening, because of the airport's proximity to the White House. The airport finally reopened on October 4.

Still, most observers call Mineta's decision to shut down the aviation system his finest moment as Secretary. "I congratulate you, Norm," Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, told Mineta during a congressional hearing just a week after the terrorist attacks. "I think the decision you made saved more lives than most people will ever, ever know."

A Test of His Loyalties

While the aviation shutdown was perhaps Mineta's finest moment, the contentious showdown over the airport security bill tested his loyalties as a Democrat working in a Republican Administration. On October 11, exactly one month after the attacks, the Democratic-controlled Senate unanimously passed a bill to improve aviation security. In addition to expanding the air marshal program and strengthening cockpit doors, it required that all airport security screeners become federal employees working inside the Justice Department.

At that time, President Bush signaled a willingness to sign such a bill despite some reservations, but House Republicans--led by Majority Leader Dick Armey and Majority Whip Tom DeLay--had other ideas. Believing that the Republicans had already ceded too much ground to the Democrats after September 11, they attacked the Senate bill's federalization provision, arguing that it would increase the size of government too much. "The last thing we can afford to do," DeLay said, "is erect a new bureaucracy that is unaccountable and unable to protect the American public."

Armey and DeLay eventually persuaded the White House and Mineta to lobby against a House bill that was identical to the Senate version. And those efforts paid off on November 1, when the House narrowly rejected that legislation and passed a Republican-crafted bill that gave the President the authority to decide whether screeners should be federal or private. In the end, however, the conference committee settled on a compromise bill that looked more like the Senate version. It made all airport screeners federal employees, and said that airports can revert back to a privatized workforce after three years. The final bill also placed these employees in a new agency--the Transportation Security Administration--within the Transportation Department.

Mineta, a former Congressman from California with a liberal bent, found himself in an interesting situation during this legislative fight. "The Secretary was definitely put into a difficult spot," said Kenneth Quinn, an aviation lobbyist who represented the private screening firms during the debate. Mineta had to "lobby against a bill that had the support of the Senate and the support of his fellow Democrats in the House."

Rep. James L. Oberstar, D-Minn., the ranking member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and a longtime Mineta friend, says that some fellow Democrats were disappointed to see the Secretary standing side by side with Armey and DeLay. But Oberstar contends that Mineta was just doing his job. House members "may have 600,000 constituents, but every Cabinet officer has a constituency of one--the President of the United States." According to Oberstar, Mineta served the President and House Republicans well as he lobbied members of Congress. "What he did was walk people through his thought process, recognizing the pressure that the President would face from conservatives in the House who would be flat-out opposed to a broader government role," he said. "It was clear that he had come to an intellectual level of comfort with the ideas that he was proposing and advocating."

When Mineta agreed to serve in the Administration, he worked out a deal with Bush that allowed him to maintain his independence while still serving the President, explains Susy Smith, who was Mineta's chief of staff from 1981-89 when he was in the House. Mineta, she says, established that he would be able to express his views and positions privately to the President and within the Administration. But if Bush decided against his recommendation, Mineta would represent the President's decision. "I am the Secretary of Transportation, but I'm staff to the President of the United States," Mineta explained. "And once the decisions are made, we all salute and carry things out."

Nevertheless, some foes of the Senate bill insist that Mineta wasn't the good soldier that Oberstar and others have described. They complain that he was too equivocal and accommodating during the legislative debate. In fact, some critics say that Mineta was telling members of Congress that he would be happy with any bill--as long as it gave the security responsibility to the Transportation Department. "Mineta was like a leaf, blowing back and forth," said a Senate GOP aide.

Experience, Honesty--and Criticism

Mineta's experience in transportation matters has been his most valuable attribute as Secretary. He spent 20 years in the House representing San Jose, Calif., and he served on (and at one time chaired) the Public Works Committee, where he worked on aviation and other transportation issues. In 1995, he left Capitol Hill to work as a lobbyist for aerospace giant Lockheed Martin Corp. And in 2000, President Clinton tapped Mineta to be Commerce Secretary, making him the first Asian-American to serve in a Cabinet. "I've said many times that Norm Mineta is the only Secretary of Transportation-and I've known them all-who took the job without a learning curve," Oberstar said. "He came in and hit the ground running because he was schooled in all of the multiple facets of the job."

Another striking quality has been Mineta's honesty. In June, he candidly told reporters during a roundtable discussion that the merger between United Airlines Inc. and US Airways Inc. would probably not be approved. He was the first Administration official to predict the merger's outcome, and time proved him right. During that same meeting, he also told reporters that Amtrak's financial condition was poor, and that having the United States operate a truly national passenger-rail system might not be the best approach. Both comments immediately made news--a stark departure from past interviews with Transportation Secretaries.

A third key to Mineta's success has been Michael P. Jackson, the department's deputy secretary. Mineta has put Jackson in charge of the most-pressing transportation matters--not only Amtrak and Mexican trucks, but also the new Transportation Security Administration. The two men worked together at Lockheed Martin, and while Mineta was on the Hill, Jackson served as chief of staff to Andrew H. Card Jr., who was then Transportation Secretary to the first President Bush. "I know [Jackson's] thoroughness in getting things done, his intelligence, his integrity," Mineta said. "So I love Michael Jackson."

But Mineta's experience, his honesty, and his reliable deputy have also gotten him into trouble. While praising Jackson's smarts and performance, one Hill aide believes that Mineta is relying too much on his deputy: "[Jackson is] doing everything, and you can't do everything well." In fairness, however, because the Senate still hasn't confirmed a few of Mineta's top aides, it is hard for Mineta and his deputy to delegate tasks.

It's Mineta's honesty that has seemed to produce the most problems for the Secretary. In late November, at a conference hosted by Aviation Week, Mineta suggested he might not be able to meet the airport security law's requirement that by January 18, he have a system in place to screen all passenger bags. "There aren't enough people," Mineta said then. "There aren't enough bomb-sniffing dogs to be able to do the job."

That comment produced an avalanche of criticism. Sen. Ernest F. Hollings, D-S.C., who was a principal author of the airport security bill, attacked the Secretary and the Transportation Department. "They begged for the responsibility [for airport security]," he said. "And then, within a week afterwards, they say, `By the way, the law we signed, we're not going to comply.' " Moreover, as a Senate Republican aide explained, Mineta's remark undercut the public's confidence that air travel was becoming more secure. "What Mineta did was hack away at that perception, which is 50 percent of the reason why we passed that bill," the aide said.

Burnley, the Reagan-era Transportation Secretary, argues that Mineta didn't deserve such a rebuke, because Congress's security bill created impossible deadlines. Indeed, before the bill was signed into law, screeners inspected less than 5 percent of all bags. "The problem is that [Mineta] doesn't have a magic wand," Burnley said. The White House also jumped to Mineta's defense. Ari Fleischer, Bush's press secretary, noted that if meeting the baggage deadline were easy, it would have been done a long time ago. "That's what the Administration is being forthright about," he said. "That sometimes when Congress passes an artificial deadline and says, `You have 60 days to do something that has never been done before, now go get it done'-sometimes that can be done, sometimes it can't be done."

Reflecting on his own comment, Mineta explains that he was just speaking his mind about the challenges of meeting the deadline. "Trying to evaluate how we are going to physically check 3 million bags a day, you mentally think about the machines, dogs, people, whatever," he said. "It's a tall order." Still, he maintains that the Transportation Department will get the job done: "I am confident that we are going to be able to comply with all the provisions in the law."

Another instance when Mineta's candor upset his peers occurred during a speech last month. At a dinner hosted by the Surface Transportation Policy Project, a pro-mass-transit group, Mineta blasted the final Transportation appropriations bill because it cut some highway spending. And he praised Rep. Thomas E. Petri, R-Wis.-who was in the audience-for casting a vote against the bill. Not surprisingly, that statement infuriated Rep. Harold Rogers, R-Ky., chairman of the House Appropriations Committee's Transportation Subcommittee, and Rogers later scolded the Secretary over the phone. "If a Republican had done [what Mineta did], he would have gotten a tongue-lashing from the White House," one Capitol Hill staffer said, citing a common refrain among Mineta's critics that the Secretary, as the only Democrat in the Cabinet, is practically unassailable. "That is stupid politics," the aide added.

Flaherty, Mineta's chief of staff, maintains that Rogers and the Secretary have recently smoothed things over. "Hal Rogers and Norm Mineta are old friends," he said, "and both have appeared to work out their differences."

Responding to the criticism about Mineta's frankness, Oberstar says that the Secretary just sometimes forgets that he's no longer on Capitol Hill. "He [has been] very honest, saying what he really thinks, and forgetting momentarily that he's no longer in the House, where you are allowed to revise and extend your remarks," he said. "You can't do that when you're Secretary. What you say is etched in stone from the moment you say it, and then interpreted in different ways."

Smith, the former Mineta aide, has a different take. "Part of the bargain of having Norm Mineta, with his great depth of experience, is that you also get a great deal of honesty-honesty to the President and honesty to the public," she said. "Honesty, frankness, candor, and hard work are the traits of the man, and make Norm sometimes appear impolitic even though he is a skilled politician."

The Challenge Ahead

On December 14, Mineta hosted a Christmas party in the FAA building's cafeteria. The room was filled with dozens of Transportation Department employees, industry lobbyists, and reporters. Donning a red-and-white Santa hat, Mineta stood on a small stage and spoke about his first year as Secretary. He talked about the aviation shutdown, and he praised the hard work and professionalism of his employees. But the bulk of the speech dealt with the department's prodigious new task: building the new Transportation Security Administration.

Employing an estimated 28,000 security screeners, and thousands of air marshals and other personnel, the security administration will be larger than the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the U.S. Border Patrol-combined. But the real challenge is that it must be up and operational just 10 months from now. "We are talking about 30,000-plus people who we have to recruit, hire, train, test, and deploy," Mineta said. "So this is a very big job." Furthermore, the security administration's jurisdiction will cover more than aviation: The agency will have to provide security for all modes of transportation. "I think it is the biggest challenge that any Transportation Secretary has ever faced," Burnley observed.

Indeed, the aviation security act sets some very tough deadlines for the agency. Besides requiring that beginning no later than January 18, all bags must be screened, the law mandates that airports must deploy explosive-detection machines by December 31, 2002. But achieving that goal will be difficult. At a congressional hearing in December, the FAA reported that only 161 of these detection systems have been installed at airports nationwide, and to meet the law's mandate, more than 1,800 systems still need to be deployed. Moreover, the FAA stated that the price tag for these systems could reach $5 billion.

"I am concerned that the pressure to meet the December 31, 2002, deadline will cause DOT to spend huge amounts of money quickly without any assurance that the equipment they buy will detect the explosives that could bring down an aircraft," said Rep. John L. Mica, R-Fla., who chairs the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee's Aviation Subcommittee.

The other looming deadline is hiring and deploying thousands of screeners and other personnel by November 19, 2002. Congress's intent in passing the aviation security bill was to create a better-trained and better-paid workforce. But the Transportation Department, perhaps sensing how difficult this hiring task will be, announced recently that in considering qualifications of potential screeners, it would accept one year of appropriate work experience in lieu of a high school diploma. Many observers have criticized this decision, arguing that it undercuts the image of the new federal workforce as being more reliable than the old private one.

Making matters more difficult for Mineta, the Senate failed to confirm the Administration's nominee to head this new agency before its winter recess. Nominee John W. Magaw has served as the director of the Secret Service and was the head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms after the Waco and Ruby Ridge incidents. Most recently, he served as a top official at the Federal Emergency Management Agency. During his confirmation hearing late last month, Magaw faced some pointed criticism from Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., for comments he had once made defending the ATF agents at Ruby Ridge who killed the wife and son of white supremacist Randy Weaver. Specter seemed satisfied with Magaw's reply, but one unidentified GOP Senator put a hold on Magaw's nomination. Bush, however, made Magaw a recess appointment on January 7, allowing him to serve at least until the end of the upcoming congressional session.

Despite the difficult deadlines and the delayed confirmation, Mineta and the department remain optimistic. One department official, who wished to remain anonymous, expects the department to able to meet the upcoming January 18 deadline to check all passenger bags for explosives. "We are more and more optimistic that the news for January 18 will be well received," the official said. Whether Mineta can rise to the challenge is anyone's guess, but one thing is certain: Mineta won't be telling his successor that the Transportation Secretary's job is a snap.

On Deadline The Aviation and Transportation Security Act commands the Transportation Department to meet dozens of stringent deadlines in building the new Transportation Security Administration. Below are the key dates.

January 18, 2002: The department must have a system in place to screen all checked passenger airline baggage-by hand, by bag match, or by using dogs.

The undersecretary heading the Transportation Security Administration must complete the plan for training all airport security screeners.

February 17, 2002: The undersecretary must assume all aviation security functions.

May 18, 2002: The undersecretary must report to the congressional authorizing committees about the progress in deploying baggage-screening technology.

November 19, 2002: All airport screeners must be deployed.

The undersecretary must certify to Congress that all screening personnel are in place at the nation's airports.

December 31, 2002: Explosive-detection machines must be in place to screen all checked baggage.

November 19, 2004:Airport operators may elect to employ screeners from the private sector.

SOURCE: U.S. Transportation Department

]]>

Transportation Secretary cracks down on airport security violations

Mark Murray — Fri, 09 Nov 2001 00:00:00 -0500

Last month, the media had a field day reporting that Argenbright Security Inc., one of the nation's largest screening firms, had hired convicted felons and illegal aliens. And then there was the startling story about how one airline passenger--who said he had forgotten he was carrying a loaded gun--had slipped through the security checkpoint in New Orleans.

On October 30, Mineta finally had had enough. At a transportation security summit, he announced that the Federal Aviation Administration would begin to crack down on all security lapses. If secure airport areas are breached, he said, the FAA will immediately stop flights, empty the concourse, and rescreen all passengers. In addition, if the FAA finds untrained or incompetent screeners, officials will order a similar rescreening process.

"I want consistent accountability," he told summit participants. "I want confidence restored in the screening system, and the way to accomplish that goal under the current system is to know that when people fail to meet the current requirements, it is going to sting."

And that hasn't been a hollow promise. In the past several days, the FAA has taken the following actions:

Delayed seven flights and ordered more than 1,000 passengers to pass through security a second time at the American Airlines concourse at New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport after agents discovered that one screener wasn't using a metal-detector wand.
Demanded a recheck of nearly 500 Vanguard Airlines passengers at Kansas City International Airport, because a screener didn't have the appropriate training and wasn't being supervised.
Shut down the Southwest Airlines concourse at Baltimore/Washington International Airport when a female passenger breached security.
And perhaps most notably, Mineta announced that the FAA will retrain all of the screeners at Chicago O'Hare International Airport--and possibly levy a large fine against United Air Lines--after a man carrying several knives, a can of pepper spray, and a stun gun was able to pass through the security checkpoint as he tried to board a United flight. Mineta called the security breach "a failure of dramatic dimensions."

Yet what is most striking about the FAA's new crackdown is that it is such a stark departure from the apparently cozy relationship that the agency has had with airlines and airport security firms. The Los Angeles Times recently reported, for example, that the FAA has previously tipped off security companies about upcoming inspections and has also discouraged its agents from pursuing enforcement cases. Moreover, airlines have successfully scuttled past recommendations to improve airport security.

Scott Brenner, the FAA's assistant administrator for public affairs, admits that the agency hasn't been as tough on security matters in the past, because security screening has always been a responsibility of the airlines, not the federal government. Still, he disputes the notion that the FAA is some sort of lackey to the airline industry. When it comes to airplane safety and design, he contends, the FAA and the industry have worked well together. "Our safety record is unmatched," he said.

Brenner believes that the FAA crackdown will produce some beneficial side effects. For starters, he said, it will force the airlines and the security firms to make needed improvements in their security procedures. Indeed, Argenbright--the firm responsible for the lapse at O'Hare--said this week that it was implementing new security measures that go "above and beyond current FAA regulations."

Forcing these kinds of improvements, Brenner says, is particularly important, since no one knows how long it will take Congress to finalize legislation transferring some or all of the responsibility for security screening to the federal government. Furthermore, the FAA hopes that the tough crackdown will help restore the public's confidence in the nation's aviation system.

Of course, shutting down concourses and delaying flights just because one screener forgets to frisk a passenger with a metal-detector wand will certainly hurt airlines' bottom lines, which are already in trouble. But, at least for now, airlines say they support the FAA's tougher stance.

"We wholeheartedly share the Secretary's concerns," said Michael Wascom, the spokesman for the Air Transport Association, which represents the major U.S. airlines. "Ignorance or incompetence is no excuse."

Southwest Airlines agrees. "We realize it is an inconvenience to our customers," said spokeswoman Beth Harbin. "[But] your average person--because it is about security--believes that it is well worth it."

Yet one airline lobbyist wonders how long the public will put up with constant shutdowns and delays caused by security lapses. "You can't travel freely in this country and ... not [find] some holes [in security]. There always will be holes," the lobbyist said.

But since September 11, with Americans skittish about aviation safety and security, the holes in the system have become magnified.

"We never tolerated them before, and we certainly don't tolerate them now," said Southwest's Harbin. "Unfortunately, they've just taken on a different level now."

]]>

Airport security initiatives raise more questions than answers

Mark Murray — Fri, 12 Oct 2001 00:00:00 -0400

federalize aiport security.) To such critics, it's no surprise that Washington's policy-making establishment is going too far. For better or worse, they point out, the federal government has a history of being a reactive institution. It took thousands of drunken-driving fatalities, for instance, before the government established a federal blood-alcohol-content standard for drivers. And it took the chaos from last November's presidential election before it started seriously analyzing some of this country's flawed voting methods. "It's policy by disaster," said Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen. Kenneth Quinn, a counsel for the Aviation Security Association, which represents private firms that provide airport security personnel, contends that policy-by-disaster can often lead to overreaction. And this drive to transform screeners into federal employees, he explains, is a classic example. "Any time there is a major tragedy, there is a rush to do something. And sometimes in that rush, we really do not proceed in a deliberative or informative manner. We come up with answers that have nothing to do with the problem." He notes that the terrorists' success resulted from intelligence and immigration blunders, not from holes in airport security. Quinn admits, however, that it's unfair to single out Congress and the Bush administration for overreaching in response to the terrorist attacks. "They respond to public perceptions," he said. In fact, the news media play a huge role in helping to push the government into a policies-by-disaster type of response. For weeks, major media outlets have been running print and television stories on lax airport security, forcing policy makers to confront the question: What are you going to do about the problem? Yet, while some think that Washington has gone too far on new airport security measures, plenty of others believe that it hasn't done enough. For instance, the New York Daily News recently said that two of its reporters had been able to sneak knives, razor blades, and scissors past checkpoints at 10 major U.S. airports since the terrorist attacks. The paper also reported that some passengers believe that nothing has changed since September 11. "I don't see or feel any real difference," one airline passenger told the Daily News. "The security guards seem to be looking for something, but I'm not sure they know what it is." Billie Vincent, the former chief of security for the FAA from 1982-86 and currently the president and CEO of Aerospace Services International, argues that the federal government must do more to beef up airport security. So far, he says, it has implemented only "half-ass measures that will produce half-ass results." Vincent maintains that it's essential to arm pilots with handguns, establish a full-baggage passenger match for all domestic U.S. flights, enhance security at restricted airport areas, and install cameras in the cockpits and passenger cabins. Mary Schiavo, a former Transportation Department inspector general and a vociferous FAA critic, says that the federal government is focusing too much on the screening process, while leaving open other entry points. The government needs to conduct background checks on airport and airline employees, she says, and also to develop a system that checks mail and cargo. "We have worked to plug one of the holes. But if we plug that hole, we still have a couple of others," Schiavo said. "What we are doing is responding to the last terrorist threat." Some observers maintain that Washington policy making often doesn't go far enough, because solutions can get bogged down in the legislative process. At a congressional hearing on airport security last month, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., noted that the General Accounting Office pinpointed many of the security flaws at U.S. airports after the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, but that Congress acted too slowly to make necessary improvements. "There has been a 15-year pattern on this aviation security issue, and that pattern is as follows," Wyden said. "First, there is a horrible aviation tragedy. Second, there is tremendous outrage in the Congress and in the country. Third, there are various recommendations issued by commissions and blueprint studies. And then fourth, there is slow-motion implementation of those recommendations." Wyden stressed that it's important to end this slow-motion process. "This time, we want to make the changes so that in six months or a year we don't have members of Congress back on the floor in a somber procession talking about ... another tragedy." Government watchdog groups attribute slow-motion reform to Washington's powerful interest groups. Public Citizen's Claybrook points out that corporations and other interests resist new regulatory efforts, particularly when they raise business costs. "It takes a lot to get [reform] through Congress," she said. "The lobbyists and the government have an enormous impact." Yet Claybrook does acknowledge that huge disasters can expedite reform: "An overarching issue is the only thing that breaks the lobbying chain." Which is worse-going too far, or not going far enough? For Vincent, the answer is simple: The United States must do everything possible to bolster airport security. "There are 6,000 people dead. We ought to be angry right now," he said. "There is no such thing as a middle ground on this. We will have an equal number of dead people in the future if we don't do this." In fact, the passengers who were aboard American Airlines Flight 1238 on October 8 would probably agree. As they traveled from Los Angeles to Chicago, a mentally ill man stormed into the cockpit. Although he wasn't a terrorist, other passengers and the crew subdued him, and two F-16 fighter jets intercepted the plane before it landed safely in Chicago. "Ladies were just crying," one passenger told the Chicago Tribune. "People thought they were going to die." If, as some believe, the federal government is going overboard in confiscating nail clippers and steak knives, limiting the number of carry-on bags, and proposing to federalize airport screeners, many Americans will probably be able to live with these increased security measures, especially if the new rules help to ease their minds the next time they fly. "Passengers now like to see all the extra security," said David A. Fuscus, president of Xenophon Strategies, a public affairs firm that focuses on aviation matters. "It gives them a sense of safety and comfort." But Fuscus admits that it'll be interesting to see whether Americans will continue to put up with these security measures as the months pass by. "Will people become less and less likely to wait in line?" he asked. "That's as good as anybody's guess." ]]>

Labor Secretary takes ergonomics show on the road

Mark Murray — Tue, 17 Jul 2001 00:00:00 -0400

"This is a 100 percent eyewash," said one observer of labor and safety matters. "How much substance can you get in 10-minute presentations?" Ergonomics is the applied science of designing equipment intended to reduce injuries, such as carpal tunnel syndrome and back pain, that are caused by workplace conditions. In November, during the final weeks of the Clinton administration, Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued a rule compelling employers to install equipment and change practices to alleviate these injuries. The regulations went into effect in January. But arguing that this rule would cost businesses billions of dollars a year, Congress, with the help of the Bush White House, repealed it in March. Labor unions and their supporters contend that the rule would have prevented nearly 500,000 on-the-job injuries a year. Last month, Chao announced that she would be convening three forums to look at the ergonomics issue--on Monday in Arlington, Va., on July 20 in Chicago, and on July 24 in Palo Alto, Calif. "We are bringing everyone to the table to get this important issue moving forward and resolved," she said. "Defining the best approach for ergonomic injuries is not a simple process, and we need everyone's voice heard in the process." Giving all interested parties about 10 minutes to speak at these forums, Chao wants to discuss the definition of an ergonomics injury, whether it's possible to determine if these injuries were caused by work-related or nonwork-related activities, and what the federal government's response should be. But labor unions contend that these questions have already been beaten to death. They point out that last year's ergonomics rule had been in the works for more than 10 years, beginning with the tenure of then-Labor Secretary Elizabeth Dole in 1990. In addition, there were 10 weeks of public hearings, and approximately 1,000 witnesses testified on ergonomics last year. "If anything, [the Bush administration is] trying to forget about the 10 years of activity," said Eric Frumin, the director of safety and health at the Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees. "We don't need new hearings. This has been debated ad nauseam. What we need is real leadership." Frumin adds that these forums have been set up only to create an "illusion of a promise of action," because the Bush administration isn't interested in creating a new ergonomics rule. "Workers don't need illusion--they need protection," he argued. Indeed, as it turns out, some members of Congress who voted to repeal the Clinton administration's ergonomics rule did so with the understanding that the Bush administration would establish a new one. "[P]eople who were strenuously opposed to the rule were able to persuade a number of us to vote to overturn that rule on the representation that there would be a new rule," Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., told Chao during a Senate hearing in May. Although Chao hasn't promised a new rule, she insists her department is working diligently on the issue. "[I] can assure you that we are proceeding with full speed and with absolute seriousness and intent to try to address ergonomics and musculoskeletal injuries," she remarked to Specter. Responding to labor's criticism, Stuart Roy, the Labor Department's deputy assistant secretary for public affairs, maintains that the upcoming hearings are needed because they're the first discussions on ergonomics that the department will host since the Clinton administration rule was overturned. "The Secretary believes that the forums are important to get the issue moving forward," Roy said. Pat Cleary, the vice president of human resources policy at the National Association of Manufacturers, agrees that Chao is correct to convene these ergonomics forums. Past hearings on the issue, he claims, were slanted toward labor groups and their supporters. "Thank God they are asking the right questions," he said. "For once, the Labor Department isn't stacking the deck." Cleary says that labor shouldn't have any fears about answering these questions at the forums. But according to Richard W. Hurd, if the past is any indication no one should expect Chao to issue any type of decision on ergonomics that will please labor. Hurd, a professor of industrial relations at Cornell University, says that Chao's style thus far has been to present a positive and genteel attitude toward organized labor and its pet issues--but that this attitude hasn't necessarily translated into favorable policy decisions.

For example, Hurd recalls the Secretary's attendance at February's AFL-CIO conference in Los Angeles. "Elaine Chao came and spoke, and she was extremely cordial," he said. "I was impressed how she was able to pull that off. You could hear applause at the end of her speech." But just a few days later, Hurd points out, Bush signed executive orders intended to weaken organized labor. The truth about the Bush administration's interest in ergonomics will be obvious at the forum on July 16, explains one OSHA expert. If Chao leaves the forum after the opening statements, it will be evident that the administration isn't serious about the issue. "One of the key things to watch for is how long Chao stays," the expert said.

]]>

Labor Department

Mark Murray, Piper Fogg, and Jason Ellenburg — Thu, 28 Jun 2001 00:00:00 -0400

Established: 1913
Address: 200 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 1-866-4-USA-DOL
2001 Budget:: $39.2 billion
Employment:: 16,175
Web Site: www.dol.gov
Functions: The Labor Department administers and enforces statutes that promote the welfare of U.S. wage earners, improve their working conditions, and advance their opportunities for profitable Employment:. The department operates unEmployment: compensation systems; conducts job-training programs; regulates pension funds; enforces minimum-wage and other labor laws; and collects, analyzes, and publishes labor and economic statistics.

Elaine Chao
Secretary
1-866-4-USA-DOL
When the President's first choice to run Labor, Linda Chavez, evoked loud protests from unions and eventually withdrew amid questions about her employing an illegal immigrant, Bush quickly turned to a congenial, risk-free candidate with a less-polarizing style. Unlike Chavez, Chao, 48, had not alienated organized labor with a paper trail of piercing attacks on the minimum wage and affirmative action. Instead, Chao has a history of pushing a conservative agenda, but without provoking messy fights and making enemies along the way. The first Asian-American woman to serve as a Cabinet Secretary, Chao sailed through her confirmation hearing with no resistance from organized labor or liberal Democrats. Her businesslike, diplomatic style led the AFL-CIO to adopt an essentially neutral stance on her nomination. The communications workers and machinists unions endorsed her appointment. Chao has served in two previous Administrations. In 1983, she was picked to be a White House fellow and plugged away for the Domestic Policy Council. Then-Transportation Secretary Elizabeth Dole recruited Chao to work as a deputy administrator of the Federal Maritime Administration, and she rose to deputy Transportation secretary before leaving in 1991 to head the Peace Corps. After Republicans lost the White House in 1992, Chao spent a frenzied four years as president of the United Way, helping the charity dig its way out of a deep pit of ethical and financial scandals. Shortly after taking over United Way, Chao married Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. Chao holds an undergraduate degree in economics from Mount Holyoke College in South Hadley, Mass., and an MBA from Harvard Business School.

D. Cameron Findlay
Deputy Secretary
1-866-4-USA-DOL
A lawyer and veteran of the George H.W. Bush Administration, Findlay says his goal at Labor is "to try and give a big-picture look to what the department is doing-in terms of regulation especially." He and Secretary Chao have similar approaches. "We both tend to come at issues from a free-market perspective," says Findlay, 41, an Indiana native and a former partner at the Chicago law firm of Sidley Austin Brown & Wood. He adds that Chao "expects me to be a point of contact with the White House, because I have a relationship over there." First in his class at Northwestern University and a Marshall Scholar at Oxford, the Harvard Law graduate started his career in the late 1980s with two high-profile clerkships: for Judge Stephen Williams on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Findlay was special assistant to Transportation Secretary Samuel K. Skinner from 1989-91, when he first got to know Chao, then-deputy Transportation secretary. When the elder Bush tapped Skinner to run his staff, Findlay became deputy assistant to the President and counselor to the chief of staff. After Bush lost re-election, Findlay returned to Chicago to practice law but kept active political ties to Washington.

Patrick Pizzella
Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management
1-866-4-USA-DOL
If Labor operated trains, Pizzella, 47, would make sure they ran on time. He's responsible for developing and implementing department-wide administrative and management policies and programs, in areas ranging from the budget to human resources. A former lobbyist with the Washington law firm Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds, Pizzella also served in both the Reagan and George H.W. Bush Administrations. He was special assistant to the head of the General Services Administration, then did a stint at the Small Business Administration. From there, Pizzella went to the Education Department in 1986. Pizzella spent five years as director of administration at the Federal Housing Finance Board before going to the private sector in 1996. At Preston Gates, he advised such corporate clients as Microsoft and Pitney-Bowes. Although confirmed unanimously by the Senate, Pizzella has already received some negative press. The New Republic reported in June that Pizzella "provided `general lobbying representation' for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands." It adds that the islands "have become a notorious haven for foreign-owned sweatshops in recent years." Pizzella dismissed the work for Preston Gates as "ancient history." Before joining Labor, he headed the GSA team for the Bush-Cheney transition and was acting chief of staff at the Office of Personnel Management. The New York native is a 1976 graduate of the University of South Carolina.

Return to Main Story

]]>

Transportation Department

Mark Murray, Piper Fogg, and Jason Ellenburg — Thu, 28 Jun 2001 00:00:00 -0400

Established: 1966
Address: 400 7th St. SW, Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202-366-4000
2001 Budget:: $61 billion
Employment:: 100,937 (65,003 civilians, 35,934 Coast Guard personnel)
Web Site: www.dot.gov
Functions: DOT administers policies and programs for highways, railroads, urban mass transit, aviation, and the Coast Guard. The department also governs the safety of ports, waterways, highways, aviation, railroads, and oil and natural gas pipelines.

Norman Y. Mineta
Secretary
202-366-1111
Mineta, the only Democrat at the Cabinet table, has a reputation earned mostly on Capitol Hill as a consensus builder that has won him praise from all sides. On reflection, it's no surprise that Bush picked him, because these qualities-not to mention the experience that came with serving in the Clinton Cabinet-will come in handy. Mineta, 69, will face such daunting issues as airport delays, airline mergers, Amtrak's fate, and congested highways and byways. It's not clear how much power the lone Democratic Cabinet officer will have, especially on such politically divisive matters as labor or the environment. Mineta, a Japanese-American and California native, spent two years in an internment camp during World War II. He enlisted in the Army in 1953 after graduating from the University of California (Berkeley). Mineta served as an intelligence officer in Japan and Korea. Returning home to San Jose, he eventually jumped into politics and was elected mayor, a position he held from 1971-74. His congressional career spanned two decades, from 1975-95. Mineta focused primarily on transportation, developing an in-depth knowledge of aviation, highway, and mass transit operations. Named chairman of the House Transportation Committee in 1992, he worked to increase state and local government control of transportation decisions and funds. In 1995, Mineta resigned from the House to work as a lobbyist for the Lockheed Martin Corp. He also chaired the National Civil Aviation Review Commission, established by Congress to examine potential problems facing the aviation industry. Most recently, Mineta was President Clinton's Commerce Secretary, becoming in 2000 the first Asian-American to become a Cabinet officer.

Michael P. Jackson
Deputy Secretary
202-366-2222
Jackson's duties as the second in command include monitoring the day-to-day operations of 11 units of the department that oversee various forms of transport for getting people and goods from here to there. He is also is responsible for the performance of more than 100,000 civilians and uniformed personnel scattered around the country and abroad. Before joining Transportation, Jackson, 47, was vice president and general manager of business development at Lockheed Martin IMS, Transportation Systems and Services. Before that, he logged four years as senior vice president and counselor to the president at the American Trucking Associations. Jackson, a native of Houston, has also held a number of previous positions in the executive branch. From 1992-93, he was chief of staff to then-Transportation Secretary Andrew Card, now White House chief of staff. Jackson was also an assistant to the President and executive secretary to the Cabinet during the George H.W. Bush Administration. He has been a researcher at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, part of Washington's think-tank community, and he taught political science for a time at the University of Georgia and Georgetown University. Jackson received his undergraduate degree from the University of Houston and a doctorate in political science from Georgetown University.

Donna R. McLean
Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs
202-366-9191
In her first job after graduate school, McLean was a lowly program analyst in the department's Budget and Programs Office from 1989-90. Just 12 years later, she's now running the show. McLean, 36, is essentially the department's chief numbers cruncher, responsible for overseeing its $60 billion budget and for shepherding the budget through the appropriations process. Born and raised in the St. Louis area, McLean obtained her undergraduate and graduate degrees from Indiana University. After her initial tour at Transportation, she was a budget examiner at the Office of Management and Budget, where she focused on aviation matters. From 1993-99, she was a GOP staff member at the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee's aviation panel. Most recently, she worked as the chief financial officer at the Federal Aviation Administration. McLean wins praise for her smarts and budget skills. And one former colleague at the House Transportation Committee, who remembers McLean's preparations for tense hearings after the ValuJet airline crash in 1996, points out that she's a cool customer. "The one thing I always remember is how calm she was in the midst of this storm. It was the one thing I always marveled at."

Return to Main Story

]]>

FEMA director has a tough act to follow

Mark Murray — Tue, 05 Jun 2001 00:00:00 -0400

That admiration has followed Witt out of office. At a party on May 2 celebrating the founding of Witt's emergency management consulting firm, James Lee Witt Associates, politicians from both sides of the aisle--including Sens. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, and Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.-gathered in a room at the Senate Appropriations Committee to repeat stories about Witt and recall how he and FEMA helped their states during natural disasters. "You're the best," they kept telling the former director.

Also in attendance was Joe Allbaugh, Witt's successor at FEMA. During the speeches, Allbaugh stood inconspicuously in the corner of the room--something difficult for a man standing 6 feet 4 inches and sporting a distinct flat-top haircut--and he appeared slightly uncomfortable. Before Witt began speaking about his new business, he summoned Allbaugh to join him and the other politicians at the front of the room. Allbaugh declined the invitation at first. "This is your deal," he told Witt. But then he relented and walked up to join Witt.

At the end of his speech, Witt recognized Allbaugh and told the audience, "I will be his biggest fan and supporter."

"I appreciate that," Allbaugh replied. The two men shook hands.

But Witt also said something else to the crowd: "If he messes up, I'll be his worst nightmare." Of course, Witt was only joking, but his statement revealed an understanding of a larger truth about political life in Washington: It's much easier to succeed those who are incompetent or unpopular. Allbaugh faces the opposite situation. He has the unenviable and unusual task of following one of the most popular acts in recent Washington history. As FEMA's director, Witt became the personification of federal help during natural disasters. He established a reputation as someone who worked hard to prevent disasters and who could cut through red tape to deliver relief. Allbaugh, indeed, has some very big shoes to fill.

But Allbaugh's FEMA is already showing signs that it will stake out its own new ground. During the first few months of the Bush Administration, the agency has become more Republican in its orientation: It talks tougher, it has a sharper focus on defense and domestic terrorism, and it is more inclined to reduce costs. This policy shift has also attracted criticism. Experts have questioned proposed cuts in popular FEMA programs. And perhaps most noteworthy of all, the residents of Davenport, Iowa, recently pilloried Allbaugh after he criticized this Mississippi River city for not taking steps to prevent flooding.

Still, most observers believe that Allbaugh has what it takes to maintain FEMA's reputation for success. "He does have some big shoes to fill," said Jim Greene, the administrator of disaster services in Montana and president of the National Emergency Management Association. "[But] I think you will probably see him build on the success of James Lee."

In his first three months in office, Allbaugh has been busy. He inspected earthquake damage in Washington state; surveyed the destruction caused by a tornado that ripped through Kansas; and traveled to North Dakota and Minnesota to look at the rising Red River. Yet Allbaugh received the most attention-and scorn-when floods hit Davenport.

In late April, the Mississippi reached a near record-high level, causing floods in Davenport. Allbaugh put himself in the media spotlight when he criticized the city for refusing to build a floodwall that, he said, might have prevented this disaster. (Davenport is the largest city on the upper Mississippi without a floodwall.) "How many times will the American taxpayer have to step in and take care of this flooding, which could be easily prevented by building levees and dikes?" Allbaugh asked.

Not surprisingly, Davenport's officials and citizens expressed their outrage. Its mayor called the director's statement "insensitive." According to one former FEMA staffer, Allbaugh's message wasn't particularly bad, but its timing was: "When people are under stress, then you don't have policy battles. That's for a couple of months later." Two days after his statement, Allbaugh traveled to Davenport and tried to mend fences. He gave the mayor a hug and said that the media had taken his remarks out of context. He explained that he had been talking about the entire country, not just Davenport. (The city is now considering erecting some type of floodwall, and it expects to receive federal disaster relief.)

Nevertheless, some observers saw Allbaugh's tough words as a stark departure from Witt's style. Witt always made it a point to demonstrate compassion during times of disaster and to emphasize that federal help was on the way. "James Lee was a very effective spokesman and ambassador," said Rutherford H. Platt, an emergency management expert at the University of Massachusetts (Amherst). Indeed, observers note that the Clinton Administration used FEMA for political advantage by dispatching Witt and federal aid to hard-hit states.

Some critics argue that Witt's FEMA became just another barrel of Washington pork and was too quick to dole out disaster money. They note that the number of presidentially declared disasters soared during the Clinton years. In his recent testimony before a Senate Appropriations subcommittee, Allbaugh said he wants to establish consistent, objective criteria for federal relief and disaster declarations.

"Expectations of when the federal government should be involved and the degree of involvement may have ballooned beyond what is an appropriate level," he said in his prepared statement.

When Witt took over FEMA in 1993, he found an agency with programs still geared toward the Cold War. It devoted many of its resources to dealing with a possible nuclear attack on the United States. Witt, in response, helped redirect many of those resources to disaster relief-tornados, earthquakes, hurricanes, and floods.

But in May, the Bush administration announced it was establishing the Office of National Preparedness within FEMA to serve as the point of contact for all of the 40-odd agencies that deal with preparedness and training issues relating to terrorist attacks of mass destruction. Although this new office seems like a return to the Cold War days at FEMA, experts say that such an office is needed. "States have wanted a single point of contact," explained Greene of Montana's disaster services. "We look at this as a positive step."

Even Witt calls the preparedness office a good idea. "One area did not get finished [at FEMA] that I felt strongly about--that's in the terrorist program," Witt told National Journal. "It needs to happen." Still, some observers worry that this office might consume a large portion of FEMA's budget, possibly affecting programs that cope with natural disasters.

Another change of direction at FEMA is the Bush Administration's desire to have states and localities play a larger financial role in preventing disasters. In its fiscal 2002 budget, the administration proposed reducing the federal government's share of payments for preventative measures from 75 percent to 50 percent. Overall, the Administration wants to trim $200 million from FEMA's budget.

But Trina Hembree, the executive director of the National Emergency Management Association, argues that a smaller federal role in preventing disasters is a mistake. "It will have a very negative impact on disaster mitigation," she said. "Local communities can't afford to match federal funding." Witt echoes that sentiment, and he contends that if the Bush Administration really wants to be fiscally conservative, it should spend even more money on disaster mitigation. Every dollar spent on disaster prevention, he points out, saves two dollars that the federal government would have to shell out in disaster relief. "One way you can truly save more money is through prevention," he said.

The administration has even proposed eliminating one of Witt's pet disaster mitigation programs, Project Impact. This $25 million trial program seeks to bring together federal and local governments, individuals, nonprofits, and businesses to prevent disasters. About 250 U.S. cities participate in Project Impact. The Bush administration, in its budget blueprint, contends that the project has not proved to be effective.

But officials in Tulsa, Okla., disagree. The city has received $500,000 in Project Impact money to promote and build safe rooms-fortified closets or bathrooms that aren't attached to a house's frame-that help protect families from tornados. According to Ann Patton, director of Tulsa's Project Impact, the program has been a huge success. "This is the best program I have ever seen in many, many years," she said. "It has the sort of magic that brings out the best in people." Joshua Fowler, executive vice president of the Home Builders Association of Greater Tulsa, agrees: "My advice to the folks in Washington would be to come up to where Project Impact is working."

Despite the proposed cuts in FEMA's budget, Allbaugh told the Senate Appropriations panel that he's not discarding disaster prevention. "I am here to reassure you that mitigation will not stop," he said. "Working with communities, businesses, and associations will not stop." He also suggested that Project Impact wasn't necessarily on the chopping block and said "it's time to take Project Impact to the next level." Allbaugh also questioned whether it was wise to reduce the federal government's 75 percent funding share for disaster mitigation and whether it would be fair to the states.

Some see Allbaugh's recent backtracking as a refreshing sign, even as he stakes out his own ground at the agency. "A good act is always hard to follow," said one FEMA observer. "But you need to make sure that you don't dismiss the things that made it a good act."

]]>

Transportation chief holds his own as lone Democrat in Bush cabinet

Mark Murray — Mon, 30 Apr 2001 00:00:00 -0400

Mineta flew to the rescue. He told Mitch Daniels, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, that the money had to be restored, reminding him that President Bush had made one thing clear when he selected Mineta to head the Transportation Department: Keep aviation matters out of the news. Mineta recounted the exchange in an interview last week with a group of Washington reporters: "I said, `Mitch, the President told me to keep aviation off the front page above the fold, and I need this $331 million for the Airport Improvement Program.' "

That argument turned out to be a winner, and the Administration chose to reinstate the funding. "Am I going to be able to win on every one of those [fights]? I doubt it," Mineta said. "But at least I feel I have the ability to take the President up on his offer of saying, `I've got an open door.' "

Pulling the airport construction money off the chopping block epitomizes the success that the lone Democrat has had during his first three months on the job, most observers say. They praise Mineta for paying attention to the obstacles confronting the transportation sector. He has been accessible to outside groups. And, despite belonging to the wrong political party, Mineta says he has been an active participant in the Bush Cabinet. "He's gotten off to a very fast start," said Jack Schenendorf, a lobbyist at Covington & Burling who served as the Bush transition team's primary transportation adviser. Prominent figures on Capitol Hill echo that opinion. "He's done an excellent job in bringing transportation issues to the forefront of the new Administration," noted Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

But not all moments in Mineta's takeoff have been smooth. In the comprehensive budget unveiled by the White House on April 9, the Transportation Department received a sizable cut in discretionary spending. Moreover, these first 100 days might be the easiest that the Secretary will face: Several potential problems loom on the horizon. They include possible airline strikes and an upcoming summer predicted to be chock-full of aviation delays and gridlock--all of which would hinder Bush's goal of keeping aviation issues out of the news. Indeed, how Mineta handles these challenges could make or break his tenure.

Most observers trace Mineta's early success to his extensive background in transportation and politics. Before becoming Transportation Secretary, Mineta had been the mayor of San Jose, Calif.; a Congressman; the chairman of the powerful House Transportation Committee; a lobbyist with Lockheed Martin Corp.; and Commerce Secretary during the Clinton Administration. Todd Hauptli, the chief lobbyist for both the American Association of Airport Executives and the Airports Council International-North America, believes that it was precisely this experience that helped Mineta win the fight for the airport funds. A less-qualified Transportation Secretary, he said, would not have been as successful. "Can you imagine an outside-the-Beltway politician hoofing it on over to the OMB? That's just not something that's easily done. You don't win those fights usually."

Rep. James L. Oberstar, D-Minn., the ranking member of the House Transportation Committee, says that Mineta's intervention saved the Bush Administration from certain defeat on the airport construction funding. Congress, he explained, voted overwhelming last year to increase the airport grant program, and it would have fought back if the White House had cut it. "He spared them a very harsh encounter with Congress on an issue where they would have lost," said Oberstar.

Although Mineta secured this particular funding, Bush's fiscal 2002 budget calls for cuts in the Transportation Department. It slashed discretionary spending by 11.4 percent-the largest cut among all departments. Overall, the Transportation Department's budget increased by just 1 percent, well below the inflation rate. Stan Collender, a federal budget expert at Fleishman-Hillard, a public relations firm, points out that such a cut is necessary to pay for Bush's tax cut and for his increase in education spending. Also, Congress has made spending on the major highway and aviation programs mandatory, which means that there's less wiggle room for discretionary funds. "You really can't blame Mineta for anything that is happening," he said.

Because the Bush budget fully funds these major highway and aviation programs, Washington's transportation community hasn't been too upset. Indeed, Oberstar believes that many of the cuts will eventually be reinstated during the appropriations process. "The Administration cuts something that they know Congress will restore," he said. "We fully expect that the transportation-advocacy folks will come in and restore some--if not all--of the budget."

Nevertheless, Collender notes that if Mineta were still the chairman of the House Transportation Committee, he would be somewhat disappointed at the Bush Administration's transportation budget. "He would be pushing real hard to get funding restored in those areas, especially because there is a surplus."

In his interview last week with Washington reporters, Mineta also discussed his experience to date as the Bush Cabinet's only Democrat. For the most part, he said, it's been a positive one, although he did admit that he feels "uncomfortable" at times working for such a conservative Administration. "I have no feeling that I have a `D' after my name," he said. "I can sit around that table at the Cabinet meetings, expressing my opinion."

In fact, he joked that he gets chided more often in this Texan White House for being a Californian than for being a Democrat.

Furthermore, Mineta said he's not too worried about being shunned because of his political affiliation. He recounted a conversation he had with Marlin Fitzwater, a former spokesman for Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush, when he was mulling over his decision to become Transportation Secretary. Fitzwater, he said, mentioned that Mineta might encounter some social ostracism as a Democrat in a Bush Administration. But Mineta, a Japanese-American who spent part of his childhood in an internment camp during World War II, responded that ostracism was nothing new for him. "I said, `Marlin, what the hell do you think I've experienced all my life?' "

Mineta might even see his role in the Administration expand. Critics have accused the White House of ignoring California--a state where Bush received only 42 percent of the vote in November--as it battles to solve its energy crisis. Mineta is one of three Californians in the Bush Cabinet (Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman and Veterans Affairs Secretary Anthony J. Principi are the others), and it wouldn't be surprising to see the White House utilize Mineta to deflect some of this criticism.

Despite his early favorable reviews, Mineta will likely encounter challenges that could produce some serious political turbulence. Chief among them is the problem with airline delays and gridlock. Flight delays reached a record high last year, and aviation experts predict that this summer will be just as bad--if not worse. Moreover, the number of U.S. airline passengers is supposed to increase from the current 650 million a year to more than 1 billion over the next decade. Mineta is already suggesting concrete ways to alleviate this problem. He is pushing to get runways built faster. He also wants to improve air-traffic-control technology. "You won't find anyone in this industry with anything but the highest praise [for Mineta]," said Michael Wascom, a spokesman for the Air Transport Association of America, the trade group that represents the major U.S. airlines.

Another hurdle Mineta faces are the looming strikes throughout the airline industry. Oberstar, however, believes that the Secretary is well suited to deal with them. "He [is in] the unique position of having the trust of labor and the respect of management," Oberstar said. Mineta's job got a little easier on April 22, when Delta Air Lines reached a surprising tentative contract agreement with its pilots. According to Chet Lunner, the Transportation Department's public affairs director, Mineta helped to keep negotiators at the table to break this labor impasse. "He and [White House Chief of Staff] Andy Card and the President worked well as a team to get that done," Lunner said.

Yet perhaps the biggest challenge that Mineta faces will be how he deals with politically divisive transportation issues. Although transportation is usually considered a bipartisan issue, some matters deeply divide Democrats and Republicans. Take, for example, affirmative action in highway-building contracts. Or labor disputes involving transportation unions. Or a transportation project's possible impact on the environment. Will Mineta, a California liberal, have a say on these contentious issues, or will he have to toe the Bush Administration's line?

But Schenendorf, the Washington lobbyist, doesn't believe that this will be too much of a dilemma for Mineta, because he's a consensus builder: "He's uniquely situated as a Democrat and a transportation expert to be able to bring [all] the parties to a common ground."

]]>

Workplace watchdog

Mark Murray — Mon, 05 Mar 2001 00:00:00 -0500

Assistant Secretary Of Labor, OSHA When the person selected to become assistant secretary of Labor for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration reports to work for the first time, he or she will find the OSHA office in a special spot -- "the basement of hell," jokes Pat Cleary, vice president of human resources policy at the National Association of Manufacturers. "I can't imagine a harder job. You've got people like me, on both sides of the aisle, sniping at you, no matter what you do."

Directing the agency that regulates and enforces workplace safety is difficult because it requires striking a balance between the highly competitive interests of business and of organized labor. Pat Tyson, who served as OSHA's acting assistant secretary during the Reagan years, agrees that the post is not for the fainthearted. "If I had everyone a little mad at me, then I'd think I probably made the right decision," he said. "It's just that kind of job."

During a Republican Administration, expect a lot more of the criticism to come from the labor camp. Peg Seminario, the AFL-CIO's director of health and safety, fears that the Bush Administration's new assistant secretary will have a more pro-business slant than the Clinton Administration's Charles Jeffress did. "We're worried, based on past history," she said. "Reagan was so bad across the board on workplace safety and regulations."

One hot button will be ergonomics, which is the study of equipment design intended to reduce worker fatigue and discomfort. In November, during the final weeks of the Clinton Administration, OSHA issued standards compelling most employers to install equipment to reduce injuries caused by repetitive motions. The standards went into effect in January. OSHA maintains that its ergonomics rules will prevent on-the-job injuries, but businesses complain that compliance will cost them billions of dollars. Tyson points out that Congress, the courts, and the Bush White House could all strike down OSHA's new rules. Still, he says, the issue -- in one way or another -- will likely end up in the new assistant secretary's lap.

Cleary, whose group represents manufacturers, believes that the new assistant secretary can help shift OSHA's focus from enforcement of workplace safety rules to compliance on these issues. "They spend three times as much on 'Gotcha' than 'Here, let me help you with this,' " he said. "OSHA still has a cop on every street corner." Return to main story

]]>

Safety first

Mark Murray — Mon, 05 Mar 2001 00:00:00 -0500

Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Judith Lee Stone, president of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, doesn't understand why the job of National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator is often one of the last major Transportation Department slots to be filled. "It somehow never gets the attention at DOT," she said, and yet "it is always the one dumping the big problems onto the Secretary's desk."

And that remains true. As the Bush Administration looks for someone to oversee the agency that's responsible for setting safety standards in the auto industry, it is well aware that the new administrator will face several troublesome issues. At the top of the list will be Firestone tires and whether the agency should expand the recall of those tires; in fact, the Firestone mess beleaguered the Clinton Administration's outgoing NHTSA administrator, Sue Bailey. Other issues that the new administrator will have to confront include regulatory decisions on air bags, automobile rollover standards, and child-safety seats.

On the regulatory issues, Stone believes that President Bush's NHTSA will side with automakers far more often than the Clinton Administration did -- even though Norman Mineta, the new Administration's sole Democratic Cabinet member, sits atop the Transportation Department. "Let's face it -- this is a Republican Administration, and they're not as interested in regulatory issues," she said.

Diane Steed, who was Ronald Reagan's NHTSA administrator from 1983-89 and who currently serves on the Bush transportation advisory team, doesn't believe that the new administrator could get away with being the auto industry's lackey. "Any administrator who does that will get killed," she said, because the job description puts so much emphasis on ensuring safety. Instead, she says, the new NHTSA will work to strike a better balance between regulating the industry and promoting safety (by, for example, working to increase seat belt use). Previous Democratic Administrations, Steed contends, spent too much of their time beating up the auto industry with regulations. "It has to be a balanced approach," she said.

Gloria Bergquist, a spokeswoman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, says that Big Business doesn't always get what it wants from Republican Administrations; she points to the examples of Richard Nixon creating the Environmental Protection Agency and George H.W. Bush signing the 1990 Clean Air Act. "I think, as Michael Jordan is finding out, there is no slam dunk in Washington anymore," she said. Return to main story

]]>

Mineta brings spirit of bipartisanship to Transportation

Mark Murray — Thu, 15 Feb 2001 00:00:00 -0500

President Bush, fulfilling his intention to include at least one Democrat in his Cabinet, on Jan. 2 appointed Democrat Norman Y. Mineta--who most recently served as Clinton's Commerce Secretary--to head the Transportation Department. And Mineta is no "Boll Weevil" Democrat: He supports organized labor, the environment, and the virtues of mass transit.

Of course, how much power the liberal Mineta will actually wield is a subject of debate among transportation observers. During the news conference announcing his appointment, Mineta said he was eager to work for Bush, stressing that transportation is a bipartisan issue. "There are no Democratic or Republican highways, no such thing as Republican or Democratic traffic congestion, no such thing as Republican or Democratic aviation and highway safety," he said. But partisan squabbles have, in fact, been common in transportation matters. These include fights over affirmative action in awarding highway construction contracts, labor issues involving transportation unions, and environmental concerns in transportation planning. Will Mineta have a say on these contentious issues? Or will he have to toe the Bush Administration's line?

Some Democrats privately say that Mineta might have a lot more power than many observers think. Bush can't afford to fire him or ask him to resign, these Democrats say, because Mineta's the Administration's sole Democrat. But other people believe that the White House will be calling most of the shots on important transportation matters, just as Clinton's White House and Office of Management and Budget did when Rodney E. Slater sat atop the Transportation Department.

"The Secretary of Transportation is somebody who goes out and beats the bushes for the Administration on a repeated basis," a former Capitol Hill aide said. Moreover, although Mineta will probably bring along some of his own people, the Bush team will most likely fill the majority of the department's political positions.

Eric K. Federing, a former Mineta staffer, acknowledges that working for the Bush Administration will compromise some of Mineta's core principles. But the staffer notes that Mineta took the job knowing this would happen. "Norm's reputation and credibility is incredibly well-known.... I think [he realizes] there's an opportunity to do some good work for the American people."

Roy Kienitz, executive director of the Surface Transportation Policy Project, a pro-mass-transit group, hopes that Mineta will motivate the Bush Administration to focus more on transportation alternatives. "[Mineta] was the best possible outcome, given the other names that were mentioned," he said.

Despite the questions about how much power Mineta will have, most Democrats and Republicans have applauded his selection. For starters, they praise his prior work as a mayor, a Congressman who chaired what was then called the House Public Works and Transportation Committee, a lobbyist for aerospace giant Lockheed Martin Corp., and Commerce Secretary. Indeed, his experience on the Hill will undoubtedly help him work with Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, who chair Congress's transportation authorizing committees. (Yet it will be interesting to see how the liberal Mineta gets along with the conservative Young.)

"I think the most important thing he's going to bring is that he's a transportation guy," said David A. Fuscus, a former Republican staffer who worked at the Mineta-led Transportation Committee. "Right from the beginning, there's no learning curve for Norm Mineta."

In addition, Sante Esposito, who served as Mineta's chief counsel at the Transportation Committee and is now a Washington lobbyist, says that Mineta has a passion for transportation. "He's very committed to transportation policy. That's always been his love." And retired Rep. Robert Roe, D-N.J., who preceded Mineta as chairman of the Transportation Committee, is impressed by Mineta's mind and attitude: "He's a visionary. He's gutsy.... I think he'll be a great guy at the helm of the department."

Mineta, however, has received some criticism for failing to work with his Republican counterparts at the committee--especially Rep. Bud Shuster, R-Pa.--after 1994, when the Democrats lost their majority in the House. Mineta, who was no longer chairman, left Congress in 1995 to work for Lockheed Martin. "Mineta and Shuster just did not get along," said one former Hill aide. "They were barely speaking to each other by the time Mineta left." Their feud might still create some tensions: Shuster's trusted aide, Jack Schenendorf, is heading Bush's transportation transition team and will play a key role in staffing the department.

When Mineta moves into the Secretary's suite, he will have his hands full of challenging transportation issues. Airline delays and gridlock plague the skies. The air traffic control system is antiquated. And Amtrak could be liquidated if it doesn't start meeting its operational costs. "They are really tough, tough jobs that he's going to have to tackle head-on," Fuscus said.

]]>

FEMA administrator wins management kudos

Mark Murray — Tue, 16 Jan 2001 00:00:00 -0500

No More `Bureaucratic Jackasses'

Out of all of Clinton's pals who followed him to Washington from Arkansas, James Lee Witt, 57, has not only been perhaps the most successful, he also seems to be one of the few who hasn't been hurt or ruined by Washington. Deputy White House Counsel Vince Foster committed suicide. Webster Hubbell, the associate attorney general, went to prison. And Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders was fired. Witt's success story is a special one. The son of a farmer raised in rural Arkansas, Witt never made it beyond high school. After graduation, he entered the construction business. He was later elected to six terms as county judge-the chief elected official of Yell County, Ark. Stories abound about the ways in which Witt, while serving in that position, and his two sons would personally help residents in times of distress. Often, the three men would sprinkle salt on the roads during freezes and stack sandbags during storms. In 1988, then-Gov. Clinton appointed Witt to direct the Arkansas Office of Emergency Services. When Clinton took over the White House in 1993, he tapped Witt to head FEMA. Created in 1979, the agency oversees the government's response to natural disasters and terrorist acts. It also helps distribute federal aid to people and businesses that have lost property in disasters. When he came to Washington, Witt took the reins of an agency that was in utter disarray. FEMA, critics charged, didn't respond quickly to disasters. It didn't work well with other federal agencies and local governments. It was wrapped in bureaucratic red tape. And above all, critics said, it was a dumping ground for incompetent bureaucrats and political lackeys. "It used to be called a ... turkey farm," explained Larry Zensinger, FEMA's director of human services, who has worked at the agency since 1979. After Hurricane Hugo hit the South Carolina coast in 1989, an earthquake shook California in the same year, and Hurricane Andrew damaged Florida in 1992, attacks on the agency reached their apex. Critics argued that FEMA's response to these disasters was too slow. "It is the sorriest bunch of bureaucratic jackasses I have ever encountered in my life," Sen. Ernest F. Hollings, D-S.C., complained on the Senate floor in the aftermath of Hugo. Some members of Congress, including Rep. Fortney H. "Pete" Stark, D-Calif., called for the agency's elimination and placing disaster relief in the hands of the military. "[FEMA's] response was a blizzard of red tape, a hurricane of hot air, but no avalanche of help-more like a glacial mountain of delay," Stark said. But Witt has turned the agency around. One of FEMA's institutional problems was that it was a product of the Cold War, and many of its resources were devoted to dealing with a possible nuclear attack on the United States. After taking office, Witt worked to redirect those resources to help with disaster relief. Said Zensinger: "The thinking was: `We didn't have the Cold War anymore. Why don't [we] pay more attention to domestic issues?' " Witt has also made the agency more responsive to the victims of natural disasters. By implementing a toll-free hot line and upgrading the agency's technology, Witt has helped to reduce from an average of 30 days to just five to 10 days the time it takes for victims to apply for and receive federal financial assistance. In addition, Witt has made disaster mitigation one of his priorities. He created a program called Project Impact, which targets communities where disasters are likely to occur. Under the program, communities form partnerships with both the government and the private sector to enforce stricter building codes and to strengthen existing infrastructure. FEMA has also moved or bought 19,000 homes that are prone to massive flooding. According to Dale Shipley, the executive director of the Ohio Emergency Management Agency, mitigation has been Witt's greatest achievement. "That's his legacy, I think," Shipley said. Despite these accomplishments, Witt has not been able to completely avoid criticism. James Bovard, a conservative commentator, contends that Clinton and Witt have turned FEMA into just another barrel of Washington pork by throwing around disaster money-and that fact explains why the agency has become so popular with Congress and the states. He also notes that the number of presidentially declared disasters has skyrocketed on Clinton's watch. "FEMA has done a very good job of buying a great image," Bovard said. But Witt dismisses that complaint. "I think that's just a bunch of hogwash as far as I'm concerned. Our programs are designed to help the people that are in need. And they go through an application process. If they're eligible, then we can help them." A Model for Bush Over the past month, President-elect Bush has been busy assembling his team of Cabinet secretaries, agency heads, and other key advisers. But as Bush and his aides round out the rest of his Administration, it might benefit them to examine Witt's tenure. During his time in Washington, Witt has displayed some attributes and taken some actions that have helped make him a model public servant. Perhaps the most important reason for Witt's success has been his prior work experience as director of the Arkansas Office of Emergency Services. In fact, Witt is the only FEMA director who has previously had experience in disaster relief. And observers say that that has greatly improved the agency's relations with the states. "He knows the programs. He knows the needs of the states," said Trina Hembree, executive director of the National Emergency Management Association. "His experience at the local and state level has made a difference," noted Jim Greene, administrator of Montana's Disaster and Emergency Services. "All disasters are local, and you need to remember that." During a 1996 meeting with other emergency management officials, Witt recalled a conversation concerning FEMA that President Clinton had with Pennsylvania's congressional delegation. "One of the most important things he ... said [was]: `In any future Administrations, I challenge you as members of Congress to never let a director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency be appointed and confirmed without having the background of emergency management and that experience.'" Allbaugh, Bush's choice for FEMA director, doesn't have emergency management experience, but he did serve as Bush's chief of staff in Texas, where he helped shape the governor's response to natural disasters. Allbaugh wins praise for his serious attitude and his managerial and organizational skills. But perhaps his most important asset is his close relationship with President-elect Bush. "The person who runs FEMA," Bush said at the news conference announcing Allbaugh's selection, "is someone who must have the trust of the President, because [he] really is the first voice oftentimes that someone-whose life's been turned upside down-hears from." Another reason for Witt's success has been his effort to improve FEMA's public image. In particular, he has tried to make the agency a more visible sign of the government's intention to help people. For example, during his inspection of the destruction in Tuscaloosa, Witt tried to reassure the residents whose homes had been damaged by the tornado that the government was there to help them. "He is a down-home guy," said Ohio's Shipley. "He kills the King's English. You would never mistake him for an English professor. But that's not the issue with him.... What he does is try to provide a service to people who need it." Witt, moreover, has made it his crusade to educate the public about what FEMA is, and he says that required establishing good relations with the press. "When they call, let's give them an answer," Witt recalled telling his staff. "You know, if it's bad news, let's give it to them anyway. Let's give them all the information they need, because we've got to build a rapport with the news media." Witt also worked to forge strong ties with Congress. When FEMA was at risk of being eliminated after he took over as director in 1993, Witt met with members, including Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski, D-Md., who at that time chaired the Senate Appropriations subcommittee in charge of FEMA. Witt says he asked her advice on how to turn around the agency. "She told me some things that she felt like needed to be done." Witt has had another thing working for him: He has had a good relationship with the President. In fact, it has been reported that Clinton has invited Witt over to the White House to watch University of Arkansas Razorback basketball games on television. "The President [has] had a lot of confidence in him, and they [have been] able to communicate," said Zensinger. In addition, Witt has made a point of listening to and getting to know the civil servants at FEMA. Indeed, during his first day on the job in 1993, he stood at the entrance of the agency's headquarters to introduce himself to all of the employees. "One of the most important things for people coming into a new Administration is to talk to your career service employees. They're very good, very dedicated," Witt said. "I think people tend to forget that sometimes." Witt offers a final piece of advice to the men and women who are leaving their homes to work as top-level aides in the Bush Administration: "Bring your family with you when you come to Washington." After all, if Witt's experience is any indication, they can forget about ever having a peaceful vacation at home.

]]>

DOT gauges results of strategic planning

Mark Murray — Tue, 02 May 2000 00:00:00 -0400

During his tenure as Secretary of Transportation, Rodney E. Slater has made one thing very clear: Safety is the Clinton Administration's top transportation goal. In fact, in almost every speech he gives, Slater goes out of his way to emphasize just how important the issue is.

"We at DOT have said that safety is our North Star," Slater often says, "by which we are guided and by which we are willing to be judged."

With just nine months left before a new Administration takes over, how will the Clinton Administration ultimately be judged when it comes to safety? There certainly has been plenty of good news, and earlier this month the Administration released a slew of statistics showing how much safety improved last year:

The traffic fatality rate (deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled) hit an all-time low.
The number of alcohol-related deaths dropped to its lowest mark ever.
Fatalities in crashes involving large trucks (which had increased during part of the 1990s) decreased by 3 percent.

Aviation tragedies had been on the decline. In 1997, there were just two U.S. airline passenger fatalities; in `98, there were none; and in `99, there were 10. So far this year, however, there have been 83 deaths from plane crashes.

"This continued reduction in traffic fatalities is encouraging news," Slater said. "These statistics show that our commitment to safety is paying huge dividends." Of course, many factors have converged to produce these rosy figures, but observers say that the Clinton Administration deserves some of the credit.

Ricardo Martinez, who served as the administrator at the Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration from 1994-99, told National Journal that the Administration's crowning achievement has been stressing that safety is an issue for everyone-from the federal government and the states to local communities, businesses, and law enforcement groups.

"In truth, there's no silver bullet. There's not even a Lone Ranger. You have to get everyone involved," he said.

Martinez and others say that the Administration has also used the bully pulpit effectively to express its commitment to safety. It has convinced states and companies of the cost savings that are created by focusing on saving lives. And, perhaps more than any of its predecessors, it has worked with industry groups to promote safety.

In addition, Congress has passed-and President Clinton has signed-legislation that could significantly improve safety. Last year, Congress created the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration as a way of addressing the increasing number of fatalities suffered in truck crashes. Congress also passed the landmark 1998 highway bill, which established incentive programs for the states to enact tougher seat belt and drunken-driving laws. And in 1997, the Administration developed an initiative to promote seat belt use.

But safety groups point to some blemishes on the Administration's record. For starters, seat belt use (despite the Administration's initiative) has remained fairly static since Clinton took office, and it even declined from 70 percent in 1998 to 67 percent last year. Furthermore, even though the traffic fatality rate reached an all-time low last year, it has remained virtually level over the past several years; there were only 126 fewer vehicle deaths in 1999 than in 1998. In addition, deaths from both motorcycle crashes and speed-related accidents increased last year.

"We're stuck in neutral," said Judith Lee Stone, the president of the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety. "It's not that there haven't been some good things that have happened in this Administration, but we feel that there's so much more that needs to be done."

Safety advocates also complain about the Administration's proposed ruling this week concerning daily hours of service for truck drivers. Although the rule increases the amount of rest drivers must have, it also increases by two hours the amount of time they can remain behind the wheel. Michael Scippa, executive director of Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways, grumbles that these additional two hours on the road each day will endanger lives. "[The decision] flies in the face of years of research on the correlation between fatigue and fatal truck crashes," he said. "This could very well tarnish the safety record of the Clinton Administration." The trucking industry also objects to the ruling, because the additional rest means that there will have to be more trucks on the road. The decision, however, isn't finalized, and it will be open to public comment.

Others note that the Administration will probably not meet many of the safety goals that it has set for itself. For example, the Administration wants seat belt use to increase to 85 percent by the end of this year, and to 90 percent by 2005. And it wants yearly alcohol-related fatalities (already at an all-time low at 15,800) to drop by more than 30 percent, to 11,000, by 2005. "We will keep pushing, and we will not be satisfied until we hit our goals," said Rosalyn Millman, the NHTSA's acting administrator.

But Stone contends that to reach those goals, or at least to get closer to them, the nation needs to adopt primary seat belt laws, which allow police officers to pull over motorists for not wearing seat belts. Statistics show that states with primary laws have seat belt use rates that are, on average, 15 percentage points higher than those of states with secondary laws, which allow police to fine drivers for not wearing seat belts only if they have been pulled over for committing some other offense. California, for instance, has a primary law, and it has close to a 90 percent usage rate. But as it stands now, only 17 states and the District of Columbia have such laws.

Stone also argues that the nation needs to adopt a .08 blood alcohol content standard for drunken driving. "We know what the solutions are to these problems," she said. "And if we did those things, we would reach these goals."

Safety groups fault the Administration and Congress for not enacting laws that would take away federal highway funds from states that don't adopt the .08 blood alcohol level or increase their seat belt use. Under the 1998 highway law, states can receive incentive funds if they do these things, but safety advocates contend that the incentives have failed. Millie Webb, the president of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, notes that only one state has passed .08 since the 1998 law. "We feel like sanctions would have been more effective," she said. Three states have adopted primary seat belt laws since the 1998 highway law was passed.

Martinez blames the states for not passing important safety measures, such as primary seat belt laws. He admits that sanctions are a more effective tool than incentives to get the states to adopt these laws, but he says that they were impossible to pass under a Republican-controlled Congress favoring states' rights.

Many safety organizations think that the Administration's final eight months will heavily influence its safety legacy. Joan Claybrook, the president of Public Citizen and a former administrator of the NHTSA in the 1970s, points to two pending regulatory decisions that, she says, will have an impact on safety: air-bag tests and rollover tests.

In the coming days, the safety administration is expected to issue a rule on air-bag tests. Safety advocates want a standard for air bags that would protect unbelted passengers in crashes involving speeds up to 30 miles per hour. Automakers, however, contend that such a standard would create air bags that are too powerful and could possibly harm children and petite women; they prefer a 25-mile-per-hour standard. Safety groups also want new test standards that would help prevent cars from rolling over. The NHTSA's Millman expects to unveil a consumer information program on rollovers by the end of May.

"All of this bully pulpit stuff is great, but it takes concrete, programmatic efforts to increase highway safety," said Sally Greenberg, the senior product safety counsel at Consumers Union.

The Administration, though, realizes that it still has some time left to forge a lasting legacy on safety. "This President, this Secretary, and this administrator will be working until they kick us out of here," Millman said. "We're going to be working through January, and there will be a lot of good things that will occur."

]]>

Federal employees are poised to swat the bug

Mark Murray — Mon, 13 Dec 1999 00:00:00 -0500

Across the country, many Americans will be forced to abstain from the champagne toasts, the "Auld Lang Syne," and the jam-packed college football lineup on television. Instead of ringing in the New Year, they will be focusing their attention on the menacing Y2K computer bug, which, at the stroke of midnight on Saturday, Jan. 1, could wreak havoc on transactions and other operations dependent on computers.

"I expect hundreds of thousands of people who would otherwise be celebrating New Year's will be working," said John Koskinen, the chairman of the President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion. And nowhere is this more likely than in the federal government. A cast of thousands will be working nonstop throughout the New Year's weekend to make sure that everything, from the federal government's heating systems to the nation's nuclear power plants, is operating properly.

The Y2K glitch exists because many computer software systems use two digits instead of four to represent the year in a date. Thus, on Jan. 1, these computers will recognize the two zeros in the year 2000 as 1900. Most federal departments and agencies recently received high marks for fixing their computer systems, but there's a concern that states, localities, and businesses haven't done as well. As a result, the federal departments and agencies, in addition to making sure their own houses are in order, will be paying attention to how the Y2K bug affects the entire country.

One of the most important monitoring efforts will take place at the Energy Department, which will be keeping a close eye on the nation's nuclear plants and weapons, electric utilities, and gasoline filling stations. The department will have nearly 1,000 people on duty throughout New Year's weekend and will also be working with officials from the oil and gas industries and other energy groups.

Energy Secretary Bill Richardson told National Journal that an equally important task will be observing how other countries fare on Y2K. Richardson said that his day will begin at 6 a.m. EST on Friday, Dec. 31 (when the year 2000 starts in New Zealand), at the department's emergency operations center. From there, he'll monitor the energy industries in Asia, Africa, and Europe as they roll over into the double-zeroed year. In particular, Richardson says, his department will closely observe Russia and its vast network of nuclear reactors and weapons. The Energy Department has been assisting Russia's Y2K conversion effort, and some observers are worried that Russia's systems won't be Y2K-compliant. The safety of Russia's nuclear facilities, Richardson said, "directly affects our security and our interests."

Meanwhile, the Commerce Department will be tracking weather satellites, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's systems, and census surveys and statistics, explains Roger W. Baker, the department's chief information officer. Baker says that the most important job is to have these systems working when everyone returns to work on Monday, Jan. 3.

The Environmental Protection Agency plans to have approximately 200 employees working throughout the weekend, with an additional 250 staffers on standby, to monitor such things as the nation's drinking-water systems and wastewater treatment facilities. The Defense Department will be observing the nation's overseas military bases and installations for any Y2K glitches.

The command hub for all federal Y2K activities is the Information Coordination Center. Located just a couple of blocks from the White House, the center will analyze the extent to which the Y2K bug is affecting the federal government and the rest of the country. With a staff of up to 200 workers, the center will begin operating 24 hours a day on Tuesday, Dec. 28, and will continue these all-nighters into early January. Furthermore, during New Year's weekend, the center will be providing several Y2K updates to the public.

While thousands of federal staffers will be monitoring the Y2K glitch across the globe, others will be promoting confidence in the nation's computer systems. To demonstrate that the nation's air traffic control computers are working just fine, Jane F. Garvey, the administrator at the Federal Aviation Administration, plans to fly from Washington, D.C., to Dallas-Fort Worth to San Francisco as the country enters the year 2000. Koskinen plans to fly round-trip from Washington to New York and be in the air when the year 2000 arrives for pilots and air traffic controllers.

Norman L. Dean, the executive director at the nonprofit group Center for Y2K & Society, cautions that this federal surveillance effort shouldn't end after the New Year's weekend. Not all Y2K glitches, he said, will occur at the stroke of midnight on Jan. 1; some might appear weeks or months into the new year.

"There is a risk that everyone is going to let up. That complacency could increase the likelihood that we will have serious problems." In fact, the Information Coordination Center will stay open until March.

These Y2K monitors say they're geared up for the challenge ahead but are a bit disappointed about missing the fun and relaxation on New Year's weekend. Koskinen says that he and his family usually celebrate New Year's in Hawaii. But not this year. "My wife and daughter will be in Hawaii-but without me," he said.

Commerce's Baker laments that he will have to forgo some fun and sun in Florida over the holiday. "Usually, I'm sitting on a beach between Christmas and New Year's," he said. "Not this year."

But these workers are planning to make up for it next year. According to John M. Gilligan, the Energy Department's chief information officer, the top Y2K monitors throughout the federal government have discussed hosting a festive New Year's party next year-assuming, of course, that there will be a next year. "I'm looking forward to going out and celebrating," Gilligan said.

]]>

The GOP-interest group connection

Mark Murray — Mon, 27 Jul 1998 00:00:00 -0400

Like other federal offices, the Department of the Interior gripes about being buried by an avalanche of document requests from Congress. But Interior adds another complaint: It's worried that the records going to Capitol Hill are being used to aid groups suing the department.

Small wonder. After President Clinton designated land in Utah as a national monument two years ago, sparking some interest groups to file a lawsuit, Rep. James V. Hansen, R-Utah, helped subpoena administration documents on the matter.

The litigants "will feel they hit the mother lode with this," The Salt Lake Tribune quoted Hansen as saying. "That's one reason I pushed to make the documents public--to help them."

Or consider what happened last year when the Northwest Mining Association, a group based in Spokane, Wash., sued Interior over a new mining regulation.

After Interior rebuffed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request from the mining group, citing attorney-client privilege, a House Resources subcommittee chaired by Wyoming Republican Barbara Cubin used its oversight powers to obtain the very same documents the group had wanted.

"This is not about information," a senior Interior official said. "We would give them all the information they wanted. But they wanted the documents to hand to the plaintiff."

GOP committee staffers and industry lawyers deny any hanky-panky. They say that the subpoenaed documents appeared only in the committee's June 5 oversight report, which was issued after the lawsuit had been decided.

"We don't conduct discovery for any private litigant, period," said Duane Gibson, a Resources Committee counsel.

But in a telephone interview, Laura Skaer, executive director of the mining association, said the committee was instrumental in her organization's victory in the lawsuit. Three days later, however, Skaer called back to say her group didn't receive any documents from the committee.

Cubin was involved in another dustup with Interior. Last year, 10 oil and gas associations filed an FOIA request for documents related to an Interior review of businesses that drill on federal land. Interior, which suspected that the associations were gathering ammunition for a lawsuit, told the oil and gas interests they would have to cough up thousands of dollars in retrieval and copying fees.

In March, Cubin told Interior to hand over the documents requested in the initial FOIA. According to Bill Condit, Cubin's subcommittee staff director, the oil and gas interests were "telling us that the department [wasn't] acting on the FOIA request in a timely fashion."

]]>

HUD's 'urban Peace Corps' proves popular

Mark Murray — Tue, 26 May 1998 00:00:00 -0400

James J. Wilson, 59, has an impressive resume. The former attorney for the St. Louis city government is now a partner in a private law firm and also teaches courses on state and local government at St. Louis University's law school. Now he wants to give it all up, for two years anyway, to work for the Housing and Urban Development Department.

That's right--HUD, the federal agency created in 1965 that provides housing assistance and helps with community development and preservation.

But it's probably better known as the agency that was scandal-ridden all through the 1980s; that, in its own words, had become "the poster child for inept government"; and that remains the only governmental entity on the General Accounting Office's high-risk list for fraud, waste and abuse.

Yet Wilson is one of approximately 8,400 professional Americans--lawyers, doctors, teachers, labor leaders and politicians--who applied by the May 1 deadline to fill 230 positions in HUD's brand new "urban Peace Corps," the Community Builders Fellowship program. "It's harder to be idealistic when you are 59 instead of 25," Wilson said, although he added that "once government gets into your blood, it's hard to get it out."

The candidates selected will work full-time for two years, with the possibility of a two-year extension, in HUD's 81 field offices, serving as the agency's liaisons with local communities.

The initiative is meant to streamline HUD's community outreach. When someone applies for a loan to open a small business or just needs to contact the agency, that person will touch base first with a nearby Community Builder, instead of calling a HUD bureaucrat in Washington.

At the unveiling of the program in March, HUD Secretary Andrew M. Cuomo called the Community Builders "HUD's front door." Joining the 230 Community Builder fellows will be approximately 350 permanent HUD employees, called Senior Community Builders. According to HUD officials, this arrangement will combine the HUD employees' expertise with the urban professionals' community contacts and special skills. Next year, HUD plans to en-list another 230 urban Peace Corps fellows.

The Community Builders program, in fact, is just one component in HUD's management reform drive. The agency cut its workforce from its 1992 total of 13,000 to about 9,000 today. (Because of the money saved from this reduction, Community Builders will not cost taxpayers a cent, HUD says.) It's also committed to contracting out tasks to the private sector, and it has created a centralized enforcement body to quash waste and fraud.

For its part, Community Builders is an attempt to separate the agency's service and compliance functions so that HUD can become more responsive to its clients. "We really think [the Community Builders program] is a win-win," said Patricia Enright, Cuomo's senior adviser who's helping to organize the program. "We get a new infusion of talent. Our HUD employees get cutting-edge training from these people that they are working with, and communities in turn get folks from within the government as leaders in their community."

Not everyone shares her enthusiasm. Academics, urban policy experts and HUD's own inspector general have raised serious doubts about the program's effectiveness. Some see Community Builders as a giant public relations gimmick.

HUD officials expect these urban Peace Corps volunteers to exude the same idealism that exists in the Peace Corps and President Clinton's national service initiative, AmeriCorps. And if the applicants interviewed for this article are any measure, finding idealistic candidates for the program won't be a problem. "I've always wanted to join the Peace Corps. This is better than going to Bosnia--and a little safer," said Terri Williams, 36, a Community Builders applicant and the former mayor of Webster Groves, Mo., a suburb of St. Louis.

But Community Builders is hardly your typical corps. For one thing, its participants will earn $50,000-$100,000 a year and receive the same panoply of benefits as civil servants. This is exponentially higher than the $5,400 lump-sum payment Peace Corps members earn at the end of their stay, and their small monthly living allowance. Or the $5,000 education voucher and the approximately $9,000 a year for room and board that AmeriCorps volunteers receive. Indeed, the income is probably one of the main reasons more than 8,000 people applied for the program.

The Community Builders will also be handed four weeks of training at Harvard University and state-of-the-art laptops, which HUD officials believe will move the agency "light-years ahead" in its ability to respond to communities effectively.

In addition, the program's participants won't be the 20-somethings who usually enlist with the Peace Corps and AmeriCorps. (The average age of a Peace Corps volunteer, though, has increased to 29.) For the most part, the Community Builders will be middle-aged professionals with mortgage payments, big backyards, children, stock portfolios and graying hair. Call them the Minivan Corps.

On May 6, in Washington, HUD unveiled the prototype for its new local field offices where Community Builders will set up shop. These offices, equipped with stylish furniture and workstations, will feature touch-screen electronic kiosks for information on home improvement loans and how to file housing complaint forms.

HUD officials hope that those chosen to work in these offices will be granted a sabbatical or leave of absence from their workplace. They also hope to put the Community Builders in the cities with which they are familiar. If Wilson and Williams are selected, for example, they most likely would work out of the St. Louis field office.

Shortly after HUD selects its 230 Community Builders around August, the urban Peace Corps volunteers will head to Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government, where they'll take a two-week crash course in community development. The curriculum will focus on sharpening their skills to become good negotiators, listeners and facilitators. Next, the Community Builders will travel to Washington to learn about HUD and its programs, and after that, they will finally head to their assigned field offices throughout the country. On completion of their first year in the program, they will return to Harvard for an additional two weeks of training.

Once the two-year stay expires, though, HUD officials want the Community Builder alumni to keep their hands in urban development. "We also expect after they leave their service with HUD, they'll go back into communities and still be Community Builders, but working through the jobs or organizations that they came from," said William Apgar, HUD's assistant secretary-designate for policy development and research.

Yet for many knowledgeable observers, this vision of a revolving door of Community Builders helping to improve communities and housing for America's poor is a pipe dream. Ron Utt, an urban and housing expert at the Heritage Foundation, said that HUD housing projects, which, he explains, are the agency's core responsibility, are plagued by high crime rates and vandalism, problems that are only aggravated by these areas' low economic base and substandard schools. A program that recruits idealistic urban professionals to work for two years, he argued, isn't going to eliminate those conditions.

In addition, one former HUD employee, who still closely follows the agency, called Community Builders "PR fluff and no substance" because one additional person working in Baltimore or Cleveland won't make a difference in changing a mismanaged HUD. The former employee, who wished to remain anonymous, said that the program was just another example of Secretary Cuomo trying to grab attention and promote himself.

HUD officials point out, however, that Community Builders was never intended to be a cure-all. "If all we were doing was Community Builders, then that would be a telling thing. But the fact is that Community Builders is tapping into an organization that's been totally revamped from top to bottom. . . . It's the final piece, not window dressing," Apgar said.

Other critics contend that bringing in these outside Community Builders with attractive salaries and other perks is a slap in the face to the former HUD employees who've been axed in the agency's overhaul. "We are not an expanding agency. We are a contracting agency," said Tim Coward, president of the national council of local HUD unions. "[The Community Builders fellowship] doesn't send the right signal to our employees." HUD officials stress, however, that the Community Builders will not be displacing the agency's employees. Coward said that he doesn't have any objections to the concept of Community Builders; his objections rest with bringing in people from the outside.

Furthermore, Sam Staley, an urban affairs expert with the libertarian Reason Public Policy Institute, questioned the fellows' short stay, arguing that a two-year stint is hardly long enough to forge the contacts necessary for community development. And a 1997 report by HUD's inspector general raised the concern that these Community Builders will lack the expertise to be effective. "It takes years to develop technical proficiency and knowledge in just one of HUD's major programs," the report stated. "If the Community Builders are unable to acquire program expertise, our concern is that these positions may do little to assist communities and further HUD's mission."

HUD's Apgar, though, doesn't see a problem with the short stay or the fellows' lack of expertise. "HUD has no shortage of experts. Our average employee has been here for 15, 16 years. . . . So that doesn't disappear. The Community Builder is just a link between the community and all of this expertise."

The success of Community Builders won't even begin to be calculated until the first 230 participants finish their tours of duty. Nevertheless, with applicants such as Randy Parraz, this urban Peace Corps has at least attracted the right stuff. Parraz, 30, is a community action coordinator with the AFL-CIO in Washington, and he's been working in California to defeat that state's ballot proposition to stop the unions from automatically using dues for political purposes without members' permission. But if he's selected for HUD's program, Parraz will take a leave from the AFL-CIO. Community Builders is "too good of an opportunity to pass up," he said. "I love challenges. I love to be able to create things."

]]>

Federal welfare-to-work effort showing results

Mark Murray — Tue, 19 May 1998 00:00:00 -0400

In 1995, James P. Lowery Jr., a single father raising a young son, lost his job in the corporate printing industry. And he couldn't find another one. "Try going from 50K to zero overnight," he said. "Culture shock." For the next 20 months, Lowery received Medicaid, food stamps and a monthly welfare check to make ends meet.

Last July, the 39-year-old dad finally landed a job as an automations clerk at the Labor Department, where he helps maintain his office's filing system. Although his salary of $21,500 pales in comparison to what he used to make, Lowery's happy to have the job. "It brings back the everyday responsibility of being in the workforce again."

Lowery is one face in the Administration's welfare-to-work program. Last year, President Clinton urged executive branch agencies to hire more than 10,000 welfare recipients by the year 2000. The reason: to set an example for private businesses by helping welfare recipients get jobs--a primary goal of the 1996 welfare reform law. And last month, Vice President Al Gore, who's leading the Administration's welfare-to-work effort, asked federal agencies to press their contractors and suppliers to hire welfare recipients.

Statistics released in April show that the government has met 35 per cent of its commitment by hiring nearly 3,700 people previously on welfare. But the numbers also show that some agencies are recruiting more aggressively than others. The Treasury Department, for example, has already brought on 88 more former welfare recipients than it had planned to by 2000. And the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the Administration's human resources arm that's helping to spearhead the welfare-to-work drive, has reached 148 per cent of its commitment. "We just keep bringing on people as we find them," said OPM's director, Janice Lachance.

On the other hand, eight agencies have filled less than 30 per cent of their designated slots--including the Commerce Department, which has made only 218 of its intended 4,180 welfare hires. Linda Bilmes, the Commerce Department's deputy assistant secretary for administration, said that the bulk of the agency's recruits will work as data collectors for the 2000 census and, therefore, won't sign on until at least 1999. The State Department, which has reached only 15 per cent of its goal, reported that its security clearance process has made it difficult to hire quickly.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that the federal agencies are picking the cream of the welfare crop. The Education Department drew 18 hires from 113 applicants. And during one recruiting effort, OPM brought on 14 employees (11 of whom were welfare recipients) gleaned from some 400 candidates.

The overwhelming majority of the welfare-to-work hires have been recruited as clerks at the government's lowest level, GS-1, at a salary of less than $14,000 a year. (Lowery, because of his prior work and military experience, was hired as a GS-4 and has since been promoted to a GS-5.) Although studies have found that welfare-to-work participants often end up with temporary jobs, the Administration has stressed that it intends most of its hires to be permanent.

The agencies provide their new employees with training and orientation courses. Many also instruct workers on ways to take advantage of the earned-income tax credit. And some offer child care and transportation subsidies.

In addition, the agencies assign a mentor to each welfare-to-work employee. Debra Smith, who, along with her four children, received public assistance for a year and a half before becoming an automations clerk at the Labor Department, calls her mentor an angel. "If I have any type of problem, he'll help me solve it," she said. "He's very positive. He told me I might be his boss someday."

The government's trying. But are private companies willing to invest the money and time it'll take to make the program work? Leslie Hortum, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's senior vice president for federation development, says many companies--faced with a dearth of workers--are offering similar training and mentoring programs to attract welfare-to-work employees.

But not everyone is embracing the Administration's welfare-to-work initiative. Steven Hantzis, the national executive director of the National Federation of Employees, the 152,000-strong federal workers' union, complains that the federal government is actively recruiting former welfare recipients at the same time it's eliminating thousands of other jobs as part of downsizing efforts. But OPM's Lachance denies there's a conflict. She says that even though the federal government's slimming down, it's so big that it still hires, on average, 40,000 full-time employees annually.

Kitty Peddicord, director of the civil rights and women's departments at the American Federation of Government Employees, said her union filed a Freedom of Information Act request to determine if the government sufficiently trains the welfare hires and if it really plans to keep them on board permanently. "If they are setting up those people to fail, we will start screaming," she said.

The government welfare-to-work participants have also voiced concerns similar to those of their counterparts in the private sector. Brenda D. Mitchell, a GS-2 clerk in OPM's Pay and Leave Administration, says that she enjoys earning close to $15,000 a year after 10 years on and off welfare.

But she notes that working has created new financial woes: Her 8-year-old daughter is no longer eligible for the free child care and medical aid she received while she was on welfare. "I find it a little difficult because . . . sometimes it gets a little hard paying for child care. And [I'm] no longer receiving benefits like food stamps and Medicaid," says Mitchell. "It gets kind of hard knowing that I have to pay for this all by myself."

Another complaint: the way co-workers and the press treat welfare-to-work employees. "Stop labeling us," Lowery says. "It's not where we are coming from. It's where we are going."

The biggest question mark may be whether the Administration's welfare-to-work initiative can be matched by private industry. Perhaps the hardest part of welfare reform will be finding work for the welfare recipients least qualified for available jobs. And what happens when the unemployment rate rises and employers have a larger pool of job applicants?

For now, however, the success of the welfare-to-work initiative rests with workers such as Laura Askew, a mail associate in the Executive Office of the President. After losing her job with a North Carolina company, Askew, a single mother with a son who's now 2 years old, moved to the Washington area and spent eight months on welfare before landing her current position last June. One of the best parts of her job, she said, is "running into very important people at the White House--Ms. Clinton, Mr. Clinton, Mr. Gore."

And employees aren't the only ones lauding the welfare-to-work program. Ada L. Posey, the director of administration for the Executive Office of the President and Askew's assigned mentor, said that the former welfare recipients "run circles around their peers and colleagues."

]]>

Congress chips away at postal monopoly

Mark Murray — Fri, 03 Apr 1998 00:00:00 -0500

When you step inside the post office at the Longworth House Office Building, it's hard to miss the Looney Tunes earrings, the Uncle Sam mousepad or the Tasmanian Devil necktie for sale. Make no mistake, this isn't your grandfather's post office.

Indeed, the U.S. Postal Service offers products and services that go well beyond its legal monopoly on traditional letter mail. Priority mail and express mail were introduced in the late '60s and early '70s, respectively. Credit card payment processing and international bulk shipping service were started in recent years.

But this expanding list of services is not all good news for the Postal Service. The agency has moved into these other areas because it needs to compensate for the revenue it's losing in the increasingly competitive mail delivery industry, which now includes Federal Express (FedEx), United Parcel Service (UPS) and technological innovations such as electronic mail and faxes.

As it now stands, the Postal Service is losing market share in first-class and international mail and is projected to have a total deficit of $228 million next year--even with the price of a stamp increasing to 33 cents.

At the same time, while it enjoys some enormous advantages as a governmental entity, the Postal Service is also restrained by some quirky, bureaucratic procedures that private businesses don't confront.

The outlook is troubling enough that Postmaster General Marvin Runyon told a House Appropriations subcommittee on March 19, 1998: "At risk is not only the heart of our business, but the underpinnings for the universal mail network that has served this nation so well for over two centuries."

Rep. John M. McHugh, R-N.Y., chairman of the Government Reform and Oversight Postal Service Subcommittee, has been working since January 1995 on legislation that addresses the changing marketplace and the Postal Service's place in it. Revised a few months ago, his legislation, the Postal Reform Act of 1997 (known as HR 22), seeks to reform the U.S. Postal Service and level the competitive playing field. It would provide the agency with a more flexible rate-setting process, but also dismantle many of its competitive advantages and chip away at its sacrosanct postal monopoly.

In the competitive arena, the Postal Service has some frustrating handicaps. Unlike FedEx and UPS, it can't make quick changes in prices, because it's burdened by a rate-setting process that takes at least 10 months. The sluggish procedure also makes it difficult for the agency to bid on large express-delivery contracts. McHugh's reform tries to fix this by permitting the Postal Service to set prices and offer discounts the way any private company would when dealing with competitive services (such as express mail and parcel post). "This bill . . . would provide them with a whole universe of new opportunities to derive revenues, to become more profitable [and] compete more freely in ways that they cannot compete now," McHugh said.

But while McHugh's postal reform is an attempt to reduce the Postal Service's competitive disadvantages, it also presents ways to trim back some of its built-in advantages. For years, its competitors have complained that the Postal Service is a governmental behemoth that doesn't play by the same rules as private companies. For example, it isn't required to pay taxes, obtain licenses for its delivery trucks or even pay parking tickets.

In addition, its archrivals, UPS and FedEx, say it is unfair that the Postal Service uses the large revenues from its monopoly on first-class mail to subsidize its other services--such as express mail and parcel post--and thus gains a huge competitive edge. "They should be held to the same standards that we are held to," said Tad Segal, a UPS spokesman. "Let's make sure that fair's fair."

To even out the playing field, HR 22 establishes a strict separation of the agency's competitive services from its noncompetitive services (such as its monopolized letter delivery and pickup). And it prevents the Postal Service from offering any competitive service that can't cover its own costs. In effect, this bars the agency from using revenue from the noncompetitive side of their activities to subsidize the other. The bill also subjects all Postal Service vehicles engaged in competitive activities to licensing requirements and parking fines. Moreover, when the Postal Service sells nonpostal products and services (the T-shirts, mousepads and ties), HR 22 requires it to establish a private company, responsible for all of the taxes, laws and regulations that other firms might normally encounter.

Another provision of the reform bill slices into the Postal Service's mail monopoly. Current law contains a loophole that allows private firms like FedEx and UPS to deliver mail as long as it's "urgent" and costs the customer at least $6. HR 22, however, would reduce this cap on the monopoly from $6 to $2, opening--at the most--13 per cent of the Postal Service's monopoly revenues to private competitors, McHugh said.

Politicians, economists and competitors have long argued that allowing private firms to enter the Postal Service's monopoly would spur the agency to better mail service. According to James I. Campbell Jr., a FedEx consultant, increased competition is "highly desirable for everyone." And Robert G. Taub, staff director of the Postal Service Subcommittee, says that the mail-delivery monopoly no longer needs to be as large, because HR 22 gives the Postal Service the tools to compete head-to-head with its rivals in other services.

It's this aspect of the reform, however, that has spawned much of the criticism surrounding the postal reform initiative. The American Postal Workers Union (APWU), the nation's largest postal union, with 360,000 members, charges that private companies would gobble up the country's more-profitable areas, leaving the less-profitable and more-rural ones to the Postal Service. In testimony before McHugh's subcommittee in 1996, Postmaster General Runyon said that the $2 cap could jeopardize more than $4 billion of its $60 billion business.

The APWU also contends that the reform bill seems to favor FedEx and UPS, since by opening some of the postal monopoly, it enables them to reap huge profits. Indeed, both FedEx and UPS are enthusiastic endorsers of the McHugh initiative. McHugh, though, insists that his bill is a "balanced and fair approach" to reforming the Postal Service, because it gives the agency much more flexibility in setting rates for its competitive services. With this increased flexibility, the Postal Service Subcommittee's Taub calls the initiative "right down the middle," but he adds that it is probably "skewed to the Postal Service."

Nevertheless, the APWU believes that the Postal Service doesn't need to be reformed. Its leaders point to a recent study by the Pew Research Center for The People & The Press, which shows that the Postal Service has an approval rating of 89 per cent--higher than any other government agency's. And there's more good news. At the end of fiscal 1997, 92 per cent of local first-class mail was being delivered overnight. Further, despite its expected future financial woes, the Postal Service made profits exceeding $1 billion during the past three years. "There's nothing for [McHugh] to fix here at all," said APWU president Moe Biller. "The more he patches it up, the more we are going to have problems."

But not all postal worker unions share the APWU's sentiments on HR 22. Although they voice many of the same concerns about the $2 cap, the National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC) and National Rural Letter Carriers' Association (NRLCA) support many of McHugh's provisions, including the increased flexibility. These unions, in fact, note that McHugh has listened to their opinions on postal reform. "We're not seeing doors being slammed in our face," said George B. Gould, the NALC's legislative political director. And Ken Parmelee, vice president of governmental affairs for the NRLCA, called McHugh a "thoughtful, hardworking legislator."

Fortunately for critics such as the APWU, since Congress is already thinking about the November elections and because the revised version of the reform bill won't even be written into legislative language until perhaps May, it seems unlikely to come to a full House vote anytime soon. Campbell, of FedEx, predicts that McHugh's postal reform will most likely be considered by the 106th Congress in 1999, although the legislator's staff is more optimistic.

With the Postal Service's looming financial instability and its competitive weaknesses, though, McHugh believes that one way or another, reform will be thrust on the agency. "Look, the Postal Service is doing a great job. I'd be the first to admit that," he said. "[But] those negative trend lines are going to continue. And the process of fixing this problem can happen one of two ways: We can do it now . . . or we can put it off and wait until the crisis hits. ... I happen to think that it is more sensible to do the former. And that is what HR 22 attempts to do."

]]>

Child Care Standards Nixed

Mark Murray — Wed, 21 Jan 1998 00:00:00 -0500

No matter how policy makers look at child care in America, the existing system always seems to come up short. It's too expensive for the average working family. It's in short supply given the immense demand. It's neither stimulating nor safe enough for children. Given the scope of the criticism, many experts have concluded that national standards would be one surefire way to lift the quality of preschool care outside the home.

But when President Clinton recently unveiled his child care initiative, national standards were conspicuously absent, although the issues of affordability, accessibility and quality were all addressed. The reasons for the omission are varied, but certainly high among them was White House realpolitik: The President was loath to include national norms, because it's unlikely that conservatives in Congress would accept them.

Clinton announced his initiative during an upbeat White House press conference on Jan. 7, calling it "the single largest national commitment to child care in the history of the United States." The package includes an increase in the child care block grant to the states of $7.5 billion over the next five years; an increase in tax credits for working families to help them pay child care costs; and a tax credit for businesses that provide child care for their employees. These measures augment policies announced last October that would make scholarships available to child care providers and enable states to share information about caregivers' criminal history.

"There's great jubilation in the child care advocate community," says Faith Wohl, president of Child Care Action Campaign. But Wohl, who formerly worked at the General Services Administration supervising the federal government's civilian child care centers, admits she was disappointed that the President didn't include national standards. "[They] could go a long way toward assuring that every child in America is healthy and safe," she said.

By omitting such regulations, the President is leaving standards to the states. But, as recent research suggests, this may be risky because not every state is getting the job done.

For example, a 1995 study examining child care centers in California, Colorado, Connecticut and North Carolina ranked six out of seven centers poor to mediocre in quality. Another study discovered that 13 per cent of regulated and a whopping 50 per cent of the smaller unregulated home-based facilities offered inadequate care. In addition, a 1997 survey found that an overwhelming majority of states don't have pre-service training requirements for child care workers.

If child care in the states is mostly substandard, then why didn't the President's package include national regulatory standards to whip the deficient child care providers into shape? Well, as one Administration official put it, "In the past, trying to establish national standards has not been successful at all." Indeed, anything with the word "national" in it seems to pique the Republican-controlled, states-rights-leaning Congress. When Clinton last year floated voluntary national education tests, for instance, Congress quickly voiced its displeasure.

At the moment, the White House believes that its child care initiative has solid bipartisan support, although Sen. Larry E. Craig, R-Idaho, in last week's Republican radio address, criticized it for being too expensive. Yet there wouldn't be even lukewarm GOP support, White House officials and child care advocates insist, if the President had included national standards.

Wohl says this sort of political manuevering sacrifices the standards that every American child deserves. "There's no one in this field who doesn't feel that standards should be the same everywhere," she said. Yet many state child care officials, Administration staff members and academic researchers argue that reforms on the local level provide the most effective route to high-quality care. "States do a better job developing regulations for themselves," says JoAnne Flodin, who supervises day care licensing for Rhode Island. And Michael Kharfen, a spokesman for the Health and Human Services Department's Administration of Children and Families, says giving the states flexibility "is an essential part of this initiative that can allow for different innovative approaches."

National standards could also adversely affect states that are providing quality care, contends William T. Gormley, a professor of government and public policy at Georgetown University. "There are some states that are doing an exemplary job, and those states might actually regress towards the mean and do a worse job" if federal standards were less stringent than local regulations.

Gormley asserts that poor standards aren't the crux of problem. Rather, he says, the weakest link is the lack of enforcement in many states. "It's extremely unlikely that a day care center will have its license revoked, even if the day care center violates numerous regulations and fails to provide for a healthy and safe environment for children." The Clinton Administration has included in its package an additional $500 million over the next five years for the states to strengthen enforcement.

Because the Administration nixed national standards, it's now up to the states to improve the quality of child care. And the disappointment of child care specialists has been quickly replaced by pragmatism. "In an ideal world, I'd love to see national standards, [but] it's not going to happen," says Sharon Lynn Kagan, a senior associate at Yale University's Bush Center in Child Development and Social Policy. "We've got to work with what we've got and work to strengthen state standards."

]]>