U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

26–497 PDF 2017

TRANSPARENCY AT TSA 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 2, 2017 

Serial No. 115–17 

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

( 

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

http://oversight.house.gov 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

Jason Chaffetz, Utah, Chairman 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Darrell E. Issa, California 

Jim Jordan, Ohio 

Mark Sanford, South Carolina 

Justin Amash, Michigan 

Paul A. Gosar, Arizona 

Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee 

Trey Gowdy, South Carolina 

Blake Farenthold, Texas 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Thomas Massie, Kentucky 

Mark Meadows, North Carolina 

Ron DeSantis, Florida 

Dennis A. Ross, Florida 

Mark Walker, North Carolina 

Rod Blum, Iowa 

Jody B. Hice, Georgia 

Steve Russell, Oklahoma 

Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin 

Will Hurd, Texas 

Gary J. Palmer, Alabama 

James Comer, Kentucky 

Paul Mitchell, Michigan 

Elijah E. Cummings, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

Carolyn B. Maloney, New York 

Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Columbia 

Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri 

Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts 

Jim Cooper, Tennessee 

Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia 

Robin L. Kelly, Illinois 

Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan 

Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey 

Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands 

Val Butler Demings, Florida 

Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois 

Jamie Raskin, Maryland 

Peter Welch, Vermont 

Peter Welch, Vermont 

Matthew Cartwright, Pennsylvania 

Mark DeSaulnier, California 

John Sarbanes, Maryland 

JONATHAN SKLADANY, Staff Director 

WILLIAM MCKENNA, General Counsel 

CHRISTINA AIZCORBE, Intergovernmental Affairs Subcommittee Staff Director 

MICHAEL HOWELL, Counsel 

SHARON CASEY, Deputy Chief Clerk 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on March 2, 2017 .............................................................................. 1 

WITNESSES 

Huban A. Gowadia, Ph.D., Acting Administrator, Transportation Security 

Administration 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 6 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 8 

The Hon. John Roth, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 17 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 19 

The Hon. Carolyn Lerner, Special Counsel, U.S. Office of Special Counsel 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 29 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 31 

APPENDIX 

March 1, 2017, Letter from TSA to Chairman Chaffetz, submitted by Mr. 

Chaffetz ................................................................................................................. 62 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(1) 

TRANSPARENCY AT TSA 

Thursday, March 2, 2017 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, 

Washington, D.C. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jason Chaffetz [chairman of the committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Chaffetz, Duncan, Amash, Gosar, 

Meadows, Blum, Hice, Grothman, Palmer, Comer, Mitchell, 

Cummings, Norton, Connolly, Kelly, Lawrence, Watson Coleman, 

Plaskett, Demings, Welch, DeSaulnier, and Sarbanes. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform will come to order. And without objection, the chair 

is authorized to declare a recess at any time. 

I appreciate you being here on this important topic, Transparency at the TSA. Today, the committee will explore the lack of 

transparency at the Transportation Security Administration. We 

will hear testimony from the Office of Special Counsel, often known 

as the OSC, and the Department of Homeland Security’s inspector 

general about problems they are having with the TSA. 

Congress created the Office of Special Counsel to investigate and 

prosecute violations of prohibited personnel practices, especially 

whistleblowing. In order for the OSC to complete its mission, agencies are required to produce complete and unredacted documents to 

the Office of Special Counsel. 

Unfortunately, the TSA is not fulfilling their legal obligation to 

produce documents, frustrating OSC’s investigative efforts. And I 

can tell you with a passion on both sides of this aisle, it is not acceptable to withhold information. It is something we have both 

committed to, on both sides of the aisle, to help protect and ensure 

that whistleblowers are protected. 

You have a right in this government, as a government employee, 

to blow the whistle. But when the TSA withholds documents and 

does not allow the OSC to do its job, that’s wholly unacceptable. 

Former TSA Administrator Peter Neffenger testified before the 

committee last May that the TSA would base its response to allegations of whistleblower retaliation on OSC’s findings. But now, TSA 

is withholding the documents OSC needs to complete its investigation. So on one hand you have the TSA administrator saying: Oh, 

we’re going to base our conclusions on the findings of OSC, but the 

TSA won’t give all the information to the OSC. 

Today, I do not want to hear about how voluminous the documents are. I don’t want to hear about how many you’ve given them. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
2 

There is but one metric that is important to me, and that is the 

percentage. If you dare go to the place to tell us about how many 

documents you turned over, every time you do so, we will ask you 

what percentage of the documents did you actually turn over. 

TSA is one of the agencies in most need of the OSC’s work. Since 

2012, the OSC received approximately 243 cases from TSA employees alleging retaliation for blowing the whistle. A lot happens, very 

few blow the whistle, but when they blow the whistle, to have 243 

people say that there was retaliation is a number that is a flashing 

red light and scares us. 

The committee is constantly hearing how complaints from TSA 

employees about how the agency is a hostile work environment for 

whistleblowers. It has been almost a year since our last hearing on 

mismanagement at the agency. It’s disheartening that we find ourselves here again. It’s frustrating, and it shouldn’t happen. 

TSA selectively withholds information from OSC by asserting a 

common law attorney-client privilege that does not apply to interagency disputes. TSA’s chief counsel, Francine Kerner, the agency’s 

chief counsel since the agency’s inception more than 15 years ago, 

could not identify the client holding the privilege. When pressed, 

Kerner informed the staff that, quote, TSA has no legal obligation 

to turn over documents to the OSC, end quote. Kerner’s inability 

as chief counsel to articulate who she represents and her withholding of information shows a fundamental misunderstanding and 

antagonism towards the OSC’s function. 

Interestingly, the TSA later sent the committee a letter stating, 

quote, TSA recognizes its legal obligation to provide documents to 

the OSC and does so regularly, end quote. In fact, I’d ask unanimous consent to enter that letter into the record. It was sent to us 

on March first. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

The CHAIRMAN. It was sent to us March 1, 2017. 

It’s not about doing it regularly. It’s about doing it always, and 

that is something that drives us here today. 

The OSC gets to see all of it, 100 percent of it, not a portion of 

it, not some of it, not just the parts you want them to see. The OSC 

gets to see all of it. That means 100 percent. 

Furthermore, it should not take a congressional hearing for the 

TSA to acknowledge an existing legal obligation. Similar to the 

agency’s noncooperation with the OSC, the committee has long 

criticized the agency’s use of sensitive security information, an SSI 

designation to withhold information. 

In a 2014—in 2014, the committee issued a bipartisan report, bipartisan, finding that the agency inconsistently and improperly 

designated certain information as SSI simply to prevent embarrassing information from being made public, but these problems 

persist. According to the Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general, quote, TSA is abusing its stewardship of the SSI 

program. None of these redactions will make us safer, and simply 

highlight the inconsistent and arbitrary nature of decisions that 

TSA cannot be trusted to administer the program in a reasonable 

manner, end quote. That’s about as damning as it gets. That is as 

direct as it can possibly be. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
3 

In a recent transcribed interview with the committee, former 

TSA Deputy Administrator Mark Hatfield told the committee, and 

I quote, you could mark a Chinese carryout menu SSI’’ end quote. 

Talk about an abuse of the system, a Chinese menu. That was his 

example. 

The issues with the transparency at TSA tend to have one thing 

in common, and that’s Francine Kerner, in the office of chief counsel. She seems to be the conduit and the person that we continually 

bump into. Kerner has a checkered history and the duty—and has 

a duty to share information. As a lawyer for the Treasury Department in the early 1990s, she was the subject of an investigation for 

improperly disclosing confidential information to the White House. 

Now she’s advocating for the TSA to withhold information on alleged whistleblower retaliation from the agency charged to investigate it. There’s something fundamentally totally wrong and backwards about that. 

The committee will not tolerate these impediments, especially 

when it comes to protecting whistleblowers and ensuring transparency. The acting administrator is here today. We’re requesting 

today you right this wrong and immediately turn over all information withheld from the OSC and put an end to the practice. We’re 

going to give you a very short timeline to do so, and we will follow 

up. 

So I’ll recognize the ranking member Mr. Cummings of Maryland. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And last week, our committee conducted an extraordinary interview at my request with Mark Hatfield who served as the deputy 

administrator of the TSA and worked at the agency for some 13 

years. He explained to the committee that TSA employees lack 

some of the most basic safeguards to protect them against retaliation when they highlight security concerns. 

The deputy described an agency where, in the absence of normal 

Federal employee safeguards, a culture of retribution and arbitrary 

personnel actions evolved that made employees reluctant to raise 

security concerns. I will highlight some of the statements made by 

the deputy during his interview and ask unanimous consent to include longer excerpts in the hearing record. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. With respect to the subject of today’s hearing, 

the deputy explained, quote, there was very little transparency. 

There was a lot of distrust. There was a sense of, you know, in 

favor and out of favor employees, end of quote. 

He explained, quote, so many things were governed by self-direction at TSA. It bred misbehavior, end of quote. He said: The lack 

of protections for employees, quote, gave people the opportunity to 

do things that were typically not against the rules because the 

rules were so flexible but very questionable when you looked at it 

from a moral or ethical point of view, end of quote. 

During the deputy’s interview, our staff asked him if the absence 

of normal Federal employee safeguards contributed to an environment in which employees did not want to come forward with information about security. In response, he said, and again I quote, Oh, 

yeah. I mean, it didn’t take long for you to know enough of your 

compatriots had, you know, taken an arrow in the back, and, you 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
4 

know, were either wounded or dead, and you had a decision to 

make depending on how loud you wanted to be or how far you 

wanted to go, end of quote. 

The deputy also warned, and I quote, people learned that if you 

spoke too loudly or if you questioned whether the emperor was actually wearing clothes or not, that you could do it at, you know, 

personal consequence, end of quote. 

When Congress created the TSA in 2001, it did not provide the 

agency’s employees with all of the due process protections given to 

other Federal employees under Title 5. The deputy said that although some flexibility might have been appropriate, that TSA was 

first rated—the agency, and I quote, should have started converting 

some of these practices to make them more standardized in Federal 

Government practices, end of quote. 

He explained, quote, The structure that gave it the flexibility and 

the facility and the power to make extraordinary moves it did when 

it was created should have evolved, and unfortunately, some of 

them have just led to toxicity rather than a healthy agency, end 

of quote. 

One tactic reportedly used against TSA employees was, quote, directed reassignments, end of quote, or forcing employees to move 

entirely to new entirely—to entirely new locations as punishment 

for raising concerns. 

I’ve got to tell you, this is something that really bothered me because—and I’m sure it did the chairman—because we have people 

who were being divided from their families going—one person going 

maybe to Connecticut and the other one going to Florida. Give me 

a break. And it was punishment, punishment. 

For example, the deputy explained that the former assistant administrator in charge of agency security operations ran a, quote, 

very dictatorial department, end of quote. Rather than focusing on 

improving security, he was, quote, using the directed reassignment 

process to manipulate positions in the field and to both help people 

that were in favor and to punish people that were out of favor, end 

of quote. 

The deputy confirmed, during his interview, that one TSA whistleblower, Jay Brainard, who testified before this committee on 

April 27, 2016, received a directed reassignment after being, quote, 

very outspoken, end of quote, about security concerns. 

According to Deputy Brainard, quote, would often raise issues, 

end of quote, about security, including, quote, the extraordinary 

emphasis on speed over quality of screening, end of quote. 

The deputy said that this whistleblower highlighted, quote, what 

many felt was unreasonable reliance on a metric system that was 

oftentimes beautiful in full-color presentation on slide decks, but 

was very detached from the reality of the frontline where the actions were taking place, end of quote. 

The deputy also confirmed what we have heard many times before that TSA has abused the SSI designation to cover up information. He joked that in the early years of the agency, quote, you 

could mark—and I think the chairman referred to this—you could 

mark a Chinese carryout menu SSI, end of quote. He had a, quote, 

a brochure or something that was clearly public, a consumable maVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:51 Sep 12, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\26497.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
5 

terial information you could get on the internet or in the library 

and they would, you know, stamp it SSI, end of quote. 

Now, from everything we have seen, TSA operations have improved over the last 2 years under the most recent administrator, 

Vice Admiral Peter Neffenger. But the deputy’s interview last week 

makes crystal clear that TSA employees need the same protections 

as other Federal employees so they can speak up about the security 

of the American people without being retaliated against and Congress can consider these reforms. 

And let me say to the chairman: I thank you again. And I thank 

all of our members for standing up for whistleblowers. 

Ladies and gentlemen, if we don’t stand up for whistleblowers, 

we don’t need to be here. We need to go and get another job because, as far as I’m concerned, it would be legislative and congressional malpractice not to do so. 

Some of the best information that we have gotten was from whistleblowers, and we must do everything in our power at all times 

to protect them. And on the other hand, for anyone who thinks 

Congress should receive Title 5 protection for employees at other 

Federal agencies, TSA is a case study demonstrating why this 

would be a terrible idea. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. I also noticed that 

Congressman Sarbanes just came in, and he’s one of our newest 

members. Thank you. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Welcome. Thank you. Glad you’re here. 

Members are advised that we do anticipate votes on the floor. 

We’re going to get through the—hopefully, get through all the 

opening statements, but at the appropriate time we will break. The 

intention is to allow the votes on the floor, and then we’ll come 

back and finish up the hearing. 

We’ll hold the record open for 5 legislative days for any members 

who would like to submit a written statement, but let’s now recognize our panel. 

We’re pleased to welcome Ms. Gowadia. She’s the acting administrator for the Transportation Security Administration; the Honorable John Roth, Inspector General for the United States Department of Homeland Security; and the Honorable Carolyn Lerner, 

special counsel for the Office of Special Counsel—special counsel 

for the United States Office of Special Counsel. 

We welcome you all. Pursuant to committee rules, you are to be 

sworn before you testify, so if you will please rise and raise your 

right hand. 

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you’re about 

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

truth, so help you God? 

Thank you. Please be seated. And let the record reflect that all 

the witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

We would appreciate it if you would limit your oral testimony to 

5 minutes. We’ll give you a little bit of latitude, but of course your 

entire written statement will be made part of the record. We’ll now 

recognize the acting administrator for 5 minutes. 

But by the way, you have to straighten it up and get that microphone right up in there. It’s a little uncomfortable, but bring it up 

close. Thank you. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
6 

WITNESS STATEMENTS 

STATEMENT OF HUBAN A. GOWADIA, PH.D. 

Ms. GOWADIA. Good morning, Chairman Chaffetz, Ranking Member Cummings, and distinguished members of the committee. 

Thank you for affording me the opportunity and privilege to speak 

to you today about information transparency of the Transportation 

Security Administration. I am indeed fortunate to represent a tremendous workforce that is responsible for executing a critical security mission, to protect the Nation’s transportation systems. 

Vital to that mission success is how we share information with 

our many transportation security partners. The dynamic and increasingly complex threat environment in which we operate demands that TSA and our partners share information in a timely 

and secure manner. To that end, we work closely across the spectrum of transportation modes to exchange information, solicit feedback, and develop policy and guidelines. 

Indeed, our recent cooperative initiatives with industry stakeholders have yielded significant improvements to our security operations. For instance, we collaborated with airports and air carriers 

to address the surge in passenger volumes last spring and summer, 

and in the process, we established our airport operation center as 

a permanent and direct communication channel. Leveraging the 

center, TSA continues to hold daily calls with airlines and airports 

to track screening operations. 

We also communicate regularly with the traveling public through 

a variety of outreach efforts, press releases, and social media. TSA 

Cares and Ask TSA are two of our most popular and successful 

models of passenger engagement, but the transportation security 

system does not stop at our borders. It is undeniably global in nature. That is why TSA works alongside partners and plays a leading role in a number of regional and international organizations 

with a common vision for transportation security 

Across all our interactions, TSA strives to be transparent and 

forthright. In point of fact, doing so, it serves our interest, as a free 

and frequent exchange of information to and from partners helps 

us make better informed decisions and build lasting trust. 

However, we also must remain absolutely vigilant in safeguarding against the release of sensitive information which could 

cause harm if disclosed to our adversaries. We must balance the 

transparent flow of information with our serious responsibility to 

prevent that information from falling into the wrong hands. 

For that reason, we ensure that the information requiring protection is properly marked, handled, and distributed. Sensitive security information, or SSI, is one category of protected information 

that is defined by statute. Governing departmental and TSA management directives mandate that such information be released to 

the maximum extent possible without compromising transportation 

security. 

And because we count on our greatest resource, our people, to enforce these protections, we have updated SSI training and made it 

an annual requirement for all TSA employees and contractors. In 

addition, we have developed a comprehensive SSI policies and procedures handbook, as well as improved reference guides. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
7 

Keeping with the spirit of transparency and preserving the 

public’s access to appropriate information, TSA also follows established procedures for adjudicating challenges to SSI designations. 

Taken together, these measures enhance the SSI program and contribute to TSA’s overall growth as a true learning organization 

We must also continue to learn from each other. I encourage my 

TSA colleagues to feel empowered in voicing their thoughts, suggestions, and concerns that can lead to improvements in our workplace 

environment and how we do business. That means creating and 

sustaining an organizational culture which values responsible challenges to conventional thinking and invites opportunities to get better. And those opportunities can come from a number of sources, 

be it an audit conducted by the inspector general or an employee 

calling attention to an agency impropriety. 

I want to take this opportunity to thank Mr. Roth and Ms. 

Lerner for the efforts of their offices. With their help, I do believe 

we will continue to improve. 

Let me stress that no matter where the challenge comes from, 

TSA has zero tolerance for prohibited personnel practices, such as 

retaliation against whistleblowers. TSA is fortunate to have employees and stakeholders with a shared passion for mission success 

and integrity. We will continue to work hard to exceed their expectations. 

In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that each side of the 

coin, sharing information transparently and protecting information 

when it is required is indispensable to our national security mission. I have every confidence that the proud men and women of 

TSA today are more than up to both tasks. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Gowadia follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
8 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 1 here 26497.001
9 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 2 here 26497.002
10 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 3 here 26497.003
11 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 4 here 26497.004
12 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 5 here 26497.005
13 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 6 here 26497.006
14 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 7 here 26497.007
15 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 8 here 26497.008
16 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 9 here 26497.009
17 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

Before we recognize the inspector general, members are advised 

we have a vote on the floor, so I’m going to put us into recess, and 

we will reconvene no sooner than 11:00 a.m. 

So you’re free to go to the cafeteria, do whatever you want to do, 

we’ll be no sooner than 11:00, but if you’d please be back here just 

before 11:00. And as soon as the votes are done on the floor, we’ll 

reconvene. 

The committee stands in recess. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform will come back to order. 

We appreciate it. We were delayed for a moment, more than a 

moment, because of votes on the floor, but I believe now we were 

going to hear testimony from Inspector General Roth. You are now 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN ROTH 

Mr. ROTH. Thank you. Chairman Chaffetz, Ranking Member 

Cummings, and members of the committee, thank you for inviting 

me here today to testify regarding issues relating to TSA. 

Inspector general oversight of TSA’s programs and operations 

fosters positive change and makes government better. However, the 

effectiveness of our oversight depends on our ability to make—to 

issue detailed, balanced, and public reports that accurately describe 

our findings and include recommendations to resolve them. 

The Inspector General Act requires that we inform the DHS Secretary, Congress, and the public about any problems and deficiencies we identify through our work. Public scrutiny of what we 

find is key to accomplishing our mission. 

We have found that TSA has a history of taking an aggressive 

approach to restricting information from being made public, especially with respect to a category of information known as sensitive 

security information, commonly known by its acronym as SSI. This 

problem is well documented. 

I first encountered the issue in 2015 when TSA insisted on applying the SSI designation to information in an audit report concerning the IT operations at JFK airport in New York. Similar information had been previously published in two prior OIG reports. 

I appealed the issue directly to the TSA administrator, but it was 

not resolved to my satisfaction. And sure enough, it was repeated 

in our latest report on TSA IT systems that was published in December of last year. In that report, TSA again demanded redaction 

of information that had previously been freely published without 

objection and in which my IT security experts have told me poses 

no threat to aviation security. 

Entities outside the OIG have made similar findings, and I believe that the problem is deeply rooted and systemic. For instance, 

as far back as 2005, GAO issued a report finding that TSA did not 

have adequate policies and procedures to determine what constitutes SSI or who is authorized to make the designation. GAO 

found that the TSA’s lack of internal controls left TSA unable to 

be ensured that they were applying the designation properly. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
18 

Nearly 10 years later, this committee reached a similar conclusion in a bipartisan staff report it issued in 2014. Two years after 

that, in 2016, the chairman of the House Committee on Homeland 

Security, Subcommittee on Transportation Security objected to 

TSA’s management and use of the SSI designation, noting that the 

improper invocation of SSI, and I quote, ‘‘raised the specter we’ve 

heard again and again about TSA conveniently using the security 

classifications to avoid having public discussions about certain 

things that may be unpleasant for them to discuss in public,’’ end 

quote. 

In addition to these inconsistent SSI designations, we have encountered instances in which TSA redacted information so widely 

known that redaction bordered on absurd. For example, TSA redacted, claiming SSI, a statement in one of our draft reports related to expedited screening process. Here’s the quote: ‘‘Passengers 

are not required to remove shoes, belts, laptops, liquids, or gels,’’ 

end quote. 

We showed TSA that this information is on their publicly available website, and pretty much every traveler who goes through the 

precheck lane understands this to be the case. And ultimately, TSA 

agreed that the information was not in fact SSI and should not 

have been redacted. While this was appropriately resolved, it takes 

time away from the audit process and causes unnecessary delay. 

Likewise, we have other instances in which TSA has attempted 

to restrict information that we found on their own website. These 

examples highlight what I believe is the incoherent and inconsistent nature of the program and raise serious concerns, in my 

mind, as to whether TSA can be trusted to make reasonable, appropriate, and consistent SSI designations. 

Under DHS policy, any authorized holder of SSI who believes 

that a designation is improper may challenge the marking. Unfortunately, as I discovered, this appeals process is structured to ratify TSA’s SSI designations and prevent the review of such designations by independent external entities. The appeals process is foreordained and fails to properly balance the public’s right to information against nonspeculative threats to aviation security and is vulnerable to abuse. 

We are currently in the fieldwork stage of a comprehensive review of TSA’s management of its SSI program and its use of the 

SSI designation. We expect to have a final report by July 2017, and 

will provide a copy of this report prior to its publication to this 

committee. Additionally, we will continue to review and publish 

public reports on TSA’s programs and operations. To the extent 

that we continue to observe the abuse of SSI designation, we will 

continue to highlight it. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I’m happy to answer 

any questions you or other members of the committee may have. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Roth follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
19 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 10 here 26497.010
20 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 11 here 26497.011
21 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 12 here 26497.012
22 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 13 here 26497.013
23 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 14 here 26497.014
24 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 15 here 26497.015
25 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 16 here 26497.016
26 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 17 here 26497.017
27 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 18 here 26497.018
28 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 19 here 26497.019
29 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Thank you. 

I’ll now go to Ms. Lerner. You’re now recognized for 5 minutes. 

Bring that microphone up nice and close. There you go. Thank you. 

Ms. LERNER. Got it. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF CAROLYN LERNER 

Ms. LERNER. Chairman Chaffetz, Ranking Member Cummings, 

and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to 

testify today about the U.S. Office of Special Counsel and our investigations of whistleblower retaliation at the Transportation Security Administration. I appreciate the committee’s commitment to 

oversight, including strengthening OSC’s ability to carry out our 

good government mission. 

I want to take the opportunity to thank this committee for your 

leadership in passing the Thoroughly Investigating Retaliation 

Against Whistleblowers Act, H.R. 69, during the opening week of 

this Congress. That legislation will help OSC conduct our investigations at TSA and other agencies. 

During our investigations, it is standard to issue document requests and interview witnesses. A full and complete investigation 

requires access to all relevant information. Although agencies generally cooperate with OSC’s requests, some do not. Some withhold 

documents and other information by asserting common law privileges, and in particular, the attorney-client privilege. As the committee knows, the attorney-client privilege protects certain communications between a lawyer and client. The privilege allows the client to disclose confidential communications in order to promote 

frank and candid discussions. 

As someone who spent two decades practicing law in the private 

sector, I understand the importance of the privilege, and of course, 

it helped me to represent my clients. In government, the privilege 

is certainly important in certain contexts, such as in litigation with 

third parties. Having said that, there is simply no basis for Federal 

agencies to assert the attorney-client privilege during an OSC investigation. This is not litigation. This is an internal administrative investigation that OSC is conducting for the government. 

Indeed, no court has ever held that the attorney-client privilege 

can be used during an administrative investigation between two 

government agencies. This makes sense. We all work for the same 

government. Congress and this committee, in particular, have 

made clear that there is a strong public interest in exposing government wrongdoing and upholding merit system principles. 

Federal agencies may not use privileges to conceal evidence from 

the agency that Congress is charged with investigating them. Unfortunately, the TSA has been somewhat of an outlier in its aggressive use of attorney-client privilege in several cases. 

In 2012, Congress extended whistleblower protections to TSA 

employees through the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act. 

Since then, OSC has received more than 350 retaliation cases from 

the TSA employees. Two pairs of companion cases illustrate the 

challenges OSC faces in getting needed information from the TSA. 

The complainants are TSA officials who experienced involuntary 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
30 

geographical reassignments, a demotion, and a removal, all allegedly in retaliation for their protected whistleblower disclosures. 

In these cases, TSA withheld information from its document productions, asserting claims of attorney-client privilege. OSC has 

asked TSA to withdraw the claims of privilege, but both TSA and 

DHS rejected these requests. There are several problems with 

TSA’s assertions of privilege. 

First, as discussed above, shielding information from OSC conflicts with our statutory mandate to investigate the legality of personnel practices. When TSA doesn’t disclose the reasons why they 

took an action against the whistleblower, we can’t investigate 

whether it’s retaliation. 

In addition, TSA’s attorney-client privilege review causes significant delays in investigations. In these four cases, OSC has spent 

months waiting for documents while TSA was reviewing responses 

for privilege. 

OSC is a tiny agency. We only have about 40 attorneys to investigate hundreds of retaliation cases. Our lawyers are spending too 

much time negotiating for documents, time that could be much better spent advancing the investigation. 

These delays also directly impact complainants who are waiting 

for relief, often when they are facing devastating situations at 

work. Despite the challenges created by TSA’s privilege claims, 

OSC is committed to completing thorough investigations and protecting TSA employees. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. We appreciate the 

committee’s interest in these challenges we’re facing. I look forward 

to answering your questions. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Lerner follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
31 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 20 here 26497.020
32 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 21 here 26497.021
33 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 22 here 26497.022
34 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 23 here 26497.023
35 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 24 here 26497.024
36 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 25 here 26497.025
37 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Thank you. I appreciate it. 

We’ll now recognize the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Palmer, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PALMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I believe we have a slide. Ms. Lerner, can you give an example 

of the kinds of redactions that TSA has provided your office with? 

Ms. LERNER. Yes. 

Mr. PALMER. Put the slide back up. 

Ms. LERNER. So this is an example. This is one of the attachments to our written submitted testimony. This is an example of 

the type of document production that we’re getting from TSA, and 

it’s a real problem because this document, we believe, would go directly to the issues that we’re trying to investigate in the case. 

Was there a disclosure by the employee? Were they whistleblowing? And what were the reasons that the agency had for taking the action against the whistleblower after they blew the whistle? And when we get a document that’s 100 percent redacted, 

there’s no way we can get to the bottom of the information that we 

really need. 

Mr. PALMER. Does it appear to you, at least, that the use of the 

redaction is selective and inconsistent to the point that it might 

raise suspicion that it’s being used to cover up problems at TSA? 

Would that be fair? 

Ms. LERNER. I can’t get to what’s motivating them and their reasons for—— 

Mr. PALMER. I’m just asking appearances. 

Ms. LERNER. —redacting, but it does raise concerns. 

Mr. PALMER. Thank you. 

Dr. Gowadia, is that how you pronounce that? 

Ms. GOWADIA. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PALMER. Thank you. Ms. Lerner provided examples of overly 

broad redactions by TSA. Were you aware that TSA withheld information from the Office of Special Counsel in this manner? 

Ms. GOWADIA. Yes, sir. I am aware that we do assert attorneyclient privilege in some instances. 

Mr. PALMER. Can you explain why the documents Ms. Lerner has 

provided today were redacted? 

Ms. GOWADIA. Sir, I do not know the exact specifics of the case 

that you put up. 

Mr. PALMER. You couldn’t from reading that slide. 

Ms. GOWADIA. Certainly. And we would have to go back into the 

log and determine the exact nature. 

Mr. PALMER. Ms. Lerner stated in her testimony that even the 

date, author, the recipient of the document were redacted. Can you 

explain how that information would be privileged? 

Ms. GOWADIA. Sir, I—again, I don’t know the context in which 

this particular document—— 

Mr. PALMER. I’m not talking about that particular document. 

There are other documents. Why would you—why would you be redacting the date and the author and the recipient? Can you give 

an explanation to that? 

Ms. GOWADIA. Sir, I believe it might be on a case-by-case basis, 

those particular issues. 

Mr. PALMER. Selective? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
38 

Ms. GOWADIA. It would not be selective. 

Mr. PALMER. Inconsistent? 

Ms. GOWADIA. I would say case by case. 

Mr. PALMER. Well, it appears to be selective and inconsistent. I 

mean, why—again, why would you redact the date? 

Ms. GOWADIA. Again, sir, I have no ability to opine on the document put up or in the generalities. It would have to be answered 

on a case-by-case basis. 

Mr. PALMER. You know, you talked about attorney-client privilege. If there were no attorneys present at the meeting, how could 

TSA possibly invoke attorney-client privilege with respect to the 

document? 

Ms. GOWADIA. Sir, again, I have—I do not have insight into the 

particular document you’re talking about. 

Mr. PALMER. I’m not talking about that—just that document, but 

this has gone on with other instances where in one case the attorney couldn’t even identify the client, yet claimed attorney-client 

privilege. 

Ms. GOWADIA. Sir, let me go back to the question you asked previously about if the attorney is not in the meeting. It might be that 

an employee is asking for attorney’s advice on something. But 

again, it’s speculative, because I don’t know. 

Mr. PALMER. What if the attorney can’t identify the client? 

Ms. GOWADIA. I’m not sure where that reference is coming from, 

sir. 

Mr. PALMER. I think we’ll get into that later. 

Ms. Lerner, would you like to comment on that? 

Ms. LERNER. Sir, I think really what this boils down to is we 

don’t believe that the attorney-client privilege applies in any document for any document request. We are acting in the agency’s 

shoes. This is an interagency intergovernment investigation that 

Congress has asked us to conduct. 

It’s not appropriate for any agency to claim attorney-client privilege when they’re producing documents to OSC. It would be the 

same thing with an IG or GAO, an agency would never claim attorney-client privilege during an IG investigation. It’s not appropriate 

to claim it during an OSC investigation either. 

Mr. PALMER. That’s part of my problem with this is, as I said, 

selective use of redaction, the inconsistent use of it, claiming attorney-client privilege, it—you know, with all due respect, it appears 

that TSA is trying to cover up problems. 

Mr. Roth, do you have any comment on that? 

Mr. ROTH. We’ve been very fortunate that DHS has taken the 

policy, since I’ve been there, that the attorney-client privilege does 

not apply to anything that we receive. Of course, they’re a little 

more restrictive on publication because they don’t want to breach 

the attorney-client privilege for a number of reasons, and that’s obviously their decision whether or not to do so. But they have taken 

the position that attorney-client does not bar us from access to information. 

Mr. PALMER. Well, I appreciate your answer. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. I thank the gentleman. 

We’ll now go to Mrs. Demings of Florida for 5 minutes. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
39 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. And thank 

you to all of our witnesses who are here before us today. We do understand and know how important transparency is but also how 

important whistleblower protections are to the overall process. 

I’m pleased today to hear from both sides of the aisle to speak 

out in support of whistleblowers and the important work done by 

the Office of Special Counsel. But despite the talk that we’ve 

heard, congressional Republicans have failed to provide OSC with 

the funding that you so desperately need to carry out the work. 

President Obama’s congressional budget justification of the Office 

of Special Counsel for fiscal year 2017 requested additional funding 

for the agency, noting a record number of whistleblower disclosures 

up 74 percent over the prior 2 years. 

Ms. Lerner, is that correct, and has OSC seen an increase in its 

caseload over the past several years, and do you currently have a 

backlog in handling whistleblower complaints? 

Ms. LERNER. Thank you so much for the question. Yes, our caseload has about doubled during the time that I’ve been special counsel. We got about over 6,000 complaints last year over all four of 

our program areas, which is a really big increase. Our lawyers are 

beyond, you know, the ability to work cases the way they need to 

be working them. 

We do appreciate that the House and the House’s bill, they fully 

funded us at the President’s number. The Senate bill kept us level 

as at last year’s levels. We really do need an increase in funds pretty desperately in order for us to fulfill our good government mission and to do the kinds of things that Congress has asked us to 

do to be effective. We need appropriate staff, and we don’t have it 

right now. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. I understand that according to the fiscal year 

2017 budget justification, that you requested 15 new full-time employees to meet its caseload. Is that correct? 

Ms. LERNER. That’s correct. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. And even though this increase received bipartisan 

support in the House, the Republican-led Congress failed to pass 

the appropriations bill last year, so OSC did not receive the increase in staffing as requested. Is that correct? 

Ms. LERNER. That is correct. And also, in the Senate bill, they 

kept us at the same level as last year. They did not follow the 

House’s lead in terms of giving us the number that the President 

requested. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Okay. And President Trump was instrumental in 

pressuring Congress to delay action on these spending bills, meaning that current spending levels will remain in place until at least 

April. 

Ms. Lerner, have budget constraints affected your ability to enforce whistleblower protections, and if so, in what way? 

Ms. LERNER. I think our lawyers are doing an amazing job with 

the resources that they have. As you noted, we did request additional funds so that we could hire at least 15 more lawyers. As I 

mentioned in my opening statement, we have about 40 attorneys 

right now assigned to do the investigation and prosecution of the 

hundreds of retaliation cases that are coming into our agency. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
40 

It creates frustration for complainants. It creates delays in terms 

of getting people the relief that they need, and frankly, our staff 

is frustrated because they would like to be able to spend appropriate time on the cases. So it would be very, very helpful if our 

agency were fully funded. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. I think you stated in 2012 that you received more 

than 350 whistleblower retaliation cases from TSA employees. 

Would you say that that’s correct? 

Ms. LERNER. Yes, that’s right. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. And how many did you receive last year, roughly? 

Ms. LERNER. I don’t know the exact number, but it’s about—it’s 

about the same level. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. And do OCS’s resource constraints affect how 

quickly you can resolve the open cases, the extreme high number 

of open cases that you currently have? 

Ms. LERNER. Yeah. Let me give you an example. When I first 

started as special counsel in 2011, our complaints examining unit 

had about 25, maybe 30 cases per complaint examiner. Now they 

are up to 60, sometimes 70 cases per examiner. That’s double tripling of the caseloads. That means it takes us much longer to determine whether a case should be fully investigated. It takes us 

longer to get relief for complainants at a time in their life when 

they’re really under terrible, you know, workplace situations, someone who, you know, may need immediate relief. We may not always 

be able to get to their case as quickly as we ought to. It’s taking 

around 90 days, on average, for cases to get through our complaints 

examining unit. When I first started, it was an average of closer 

to 30 days. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Thank you so much. 

Mr. Chair, I yield back. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. The gentlewoman yields back. 

I now recognize myself. 

Ms. Gowadia, you said that TSA has zero tolerance on those that 

are applying retaliation to whistleblowers, correct? 

Ms. GOWADIA. Yes, sir. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Do you believe that the TSA—so if an employee believes that they have been retaliated against, who is the— 

or what organization is the one that comes in to figure out whether 

or not there has been retaliation? 

Ms. GOWADIA. So, sir, employees at TSA are afforded all protections from the Whistleblower Act, all TSA employees are, so they 

can go up any number of channels. They can go up to the EEOC 

line, the MSPB line, or the OSC line. They can even—— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Okay. So let’s take the OSC, for example. 

Ms. GOWADIA. Certainly. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. The whistleblower says I’ve been retaliated 

against. The TSA says, no, they haven’t. There’s a dispute. OSC is 

one of the organizations, I think the primary organization, to resolve that dispute, correct? 

Ms. GOWADIA. Certainly. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. You agree with that? 

Ms. GOWADIA. Yes, sir. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
41 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. So what percentage of the information 

should the OSC be able to review in order to figure out the right 

conclusion? 

Ms. GOWADIA. Sir, the OSC should have all the information they 

need to figure it out. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Define all of the information. 

Ms. GOWADIA. Sir, I appreciate where you’re headed with your 

question on the information we redact for attorney-client privilege 

issues. In that regard, I have to say we follow departmental guidance. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Wait, wait, wait, wait. There’s the law and 

then there’s departmental guidance. You said you believed that the 

OSC should get all of the information. What percentage is all? 

Ms. GOWADIA. Sir, I said—— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. No, no, no. It’s a simple question. 

Ms. GOWADIA. I hear you. I just want—— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. No, no. I want to be clear in what I’m asking. If she is to get all of the information, which you said—— 

Ms. GOWADIA. Well, actually—— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. —what percentage—what percentage is all? 

Ms. GOWADIA. All would be, mathematically, 100 percent, but my 

sentence was all the appropriate information. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Appropriate. What—so what do you believe 

the OSC should not see? 

Ms. GOWADIA. Sir, the attorney-client privileged information is 

presently redacted. I know you don’t want to hear numbers, so I’m 

not going to give you numbers, but it is a very small fraction. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. The only number I want to hear from you 

is that we give the OSC 100 percent of the information. That’s 

what I want to hear you say. You said you give them all, that they 

should have all. 

How are they supposed to come to a proper conclusion when you 

only give them something short of 100 percent? 

Ms. GOWADIA. Sir, in this regard, again, I have to stress that 

TSA is not an agency independent. We belong to a department. We 

follow guidance that the Department gives us. 

Now, as a part of this hearing, we have—your concern has been 

raised. I can assure you that we will follow up with this at the department level, make guidance in writing if we have to, make it so 

that we are—— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Okay. So you said it’s department guidance. When will you provide this committee that department guidance that says that the attorney-client privilege prohibits you from 

giving the information to the OSC? When will I have that on my 

desk? 

Ms. GOWADIA. Sir, I have already raised the matter with the department’s general counsel, and I will work with them to get 

you—— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. No, I want a date certain. 

Ms. GOWADIA. Unfortunately, sir, this is not up to me. I am not 

the—— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. You’re the acting administrator of the TSA. 

You’ve got 50-plus thousand employees. You don’t have the—you’re 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
42 

relying on guidance from the Department, and you’re going to withhold that information from Congress? 

Ms. GOWADIA. Sir, to my—to my best of my knowledge, the guidance is not in writing. We are working to get—— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Well, wait a second. 

Ms. GOWADIA. —the practice—— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. You don’t have—you just made this up? It’s 

not in writing? 

Ms. GOWADIA. Sir, it is a standard practice—— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. No, it’s not. 

Mr. Roth—or Ms. Lerner, is this a standard practice? 

Ms. LERNER. No, it’s not. There is no attorney-client privilege 

when one government agency is investigating another government 

agency. It’s very much akin to what the IG’s doing with—— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Do you see this with any—do you see this 

with any other department or agency or whatever you want to call 

it? 

Ms. LERNER. From time to time, but not to the extent that we’re 

seeing it with TSA. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Mr. Roth, what’s your experience with this? 

Mr. ROTH. We are part of the Department of Homeland Security, 

so we get everything, whether it’s attorney-client or not. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Ms. Gowadia, I want you to provide the 

guidance to this office next Friday. Is that fair? A week from tomorrow. 

Ms. GOWADIA. Sir, I will work with the Department to get you 

something by next Friday. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. What—let me ask you this: What do you 

think Congress has the right to see? If I ask for all the information, 

what percentage of the documentation will you give us? 

Ms. GOWADIA. So, again, when it comes to attorney-client privilege, I am not in a position to opine. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Yes, you are. You’re the acting administrator. I’m asking you right now to provide the information that the 

OSC has asked for. I want you to provide it to this committee. 

Ms. GOWADIA. Sir, may I offer something? Yesterday, we came to 

visit with Mr. Meadows, and as a part of getting ready for this 

hearing, this concern has come to my attention in a very strong 

way. I went back and I asked my staff to do a quick look and see, 

have we ever had any concern expressed by the OSC to us in the 

information we have redacted? Has that kept them from proceeding 

on a case? 

We found two instances. I believe Ms. Lerner has four in her 

statement. I have—as of yesterday, if we ever redact a piece of information from the OSC, we will always accompany it with a privileged log, and that will allow OSC to have more information on the 

information that has been redacted as a starting point. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Okay. So when will you provide the OSC 

the privileged log? When will you do that? 

Ms. LERNER. If I may, that would not be sufficient. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Oh, I’m not saying that’s an endpoint. 

Ms. LERNER. Sir, no. A privileged log suggests that there actually 

is a privilege. It’s our position that there is no attorney-client privilege. It would not be appropriate. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
43 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. But I would like—your point is well taken, 

and I concur with it. But I would be interested to see all the different times that the TSA is taking this so-called privilege, which 

we don’t buy into. 

When will you provide that to the OSC and to the Committee on 

Oversight and Government Reform? When will I have that on my 

desk? 

Ms. GOWADIA. The privileged logs? 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Yes. 

Ms. GOWADIA. With every document that we issue henceforth, we 

will issue—— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. No, no, no. Not in the future. I want to 

know all the ones in the past. 

Ms. GOWADIA. Sir, I am not familiar with how many—how many 

records—— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. It doesn’t matter how many. I want to 

know when I’m going to have all of them. 

Ms. GOWADIA. Well, sir—— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. A week from—you have a week from Friday. Okay? A week from Friday, or I’ll issue a subpoena. And guess 

what? I don’t need a committee vote. I don’t need to go ask a judge. 

I can do it myself. And I’m telling you here on national television, 

you will get a subpoena for that information. You should provide 

it voluntarily. We do not buy into this whole notion that there is 

any such privilege. 

Secondly, the information that the OSC is asking for where they 

don’t have 100 percent of the documents, when will we as a committee have that? 

Ms. GOWADIA. So, again, I will have to take that question for the 

record, because this is a departmental position that I am not unilaterally allowed to circumvent. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Who—tell me who at the Department of 

Homeland Security is holding you back. 

Ms. GOWADIA. Sir, I have to work with the Office of General 

Counsel. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Give me some names. I want to know who 

to call up here. 

Ms. GOWADIA. The Office of General Counsel. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. No, no. 

Ms. GOWADIA. The general counsel to the secretary. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Give me a specific name. That’s a big office. 

There’s lots of attorneys. Tell me the attorneys that are telling you 

not to provide this information to Congress, and tell me the names 

of the attorneys that are telling you not to provide this to the OSC. 

I want names. 

Ms. GOWADIA. Sir, it—I will follow up with your—with you and 

your staff right after—— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. No, I want you right now. You’ve had notice of this hearing. I need specific names. You have staff sitting 

there. 

How many staffs are with the TSA? 

Ms. GOWADIA. Sir—— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. How—how many staff are with the TSA 

are in this audience right now? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
44 

Please, raise your hands. Who’s paid by the TSA? How many 

people? 

Wait a second. One, two, three—hold them up. One, two, three, 

four, five, six, seven. One of these seven people has got to get on 

the phone, get your butt up out of this committee, and go get that 

information before this hearing is done. I want to have names, and 

we’re going to call them up there. 

There is no way—we’re going to go to the ends of the earth to 

protect whistleblowers. And we have an independent—we have this 

OSC—Ms. Lerner has testified time and time again, we believe in 

her and her organization. She needs 100 percent of the information, not some of it, not some that you don’t want us to have, not 

the embarrassing. She needs all of it. And I want names of who 

at the Homeland Security is prohibiting people from giving that information to the OSC. 

Ms. GOWADIA. Mr. Chaffetz, I have asked my staff to step out 

and obtain permission from the Department to give you a name before the hearing is done. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Thank you. And I need to know what information—let me ask you this, one conceptual question, and I’ll turn 

the time to Mr.—to the gentleman. 

What information do you believe should be withheld from Congress? 

Ms. GOWADIA. Sir, I don’t believe information should be withheld 

from Congress unless there are certain provisions, such as the attorney-client privilege, which, again, my hands are tied by departmental policy. I cannot take unilateral action, because there are 

ripple effects across the Department. 

That having been said, I will tell you that when it comes to SSI 

information, all of this is—we are completely transparent, not 

with—just with you but with the IG, with your staff. They have full 

privilege to all the information when it comes to SSI and things 

like that. But when it comes to the attorney-client privilege element, sir, I—it’s something—— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. I think we’ve established here that that is 

so bogus. You’re making it up. That may be what the attorneys are 

telling you. You’re a very talented, smart person. I appreciate the 

work that you do on behalf of the United States of America. But 

we’ve got whistleblowers who think they’re getting retaliated 

against, and I want you to stop hiding behind some legalese and 

throwing attorneys into meetings so you don’t have to provide documents. 

We don’t see this problem of this magnitude anywhere else except the TSA, and that’s why we’re going to get to the bottom of 

it. 

I’ve gone well past my time. We’re going to recognize Mrs. Lawrence of Michigan for 5 minutes, and some more if she needs it. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Gowadia, transportation security officers are frontline employees, who protect our airports and our skies, are not covered by 

many of the civil service protections available to most Federal employees. What kind of rights do TSOs have when they are subjected 

to adverse employment actions? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
45 

Ms. GOWADIA. Ma’am, they have full whistleblower protection 

rights, and they have the ability to bring their concerns before an 

appellate board to raise some of their concerns. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. Who’s on the appellate board? 

Ms. GOWADIA. Other TSA employees. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. What prevents a TSO from being a subject to 

an arbitrary personnel action, one taken, perhaps, because an employee has fallen out of favor with the manager? What protects 

them? 

Ms. GOWADIA. Ma’am, the entire system protects them. This is 

all about leadership. We have to make it so that our leadership is 

well educated, well trained, and well able to make decisions that 

do not adversely affect an employee on a—— 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. I understand that, but what—what prevents an 

employee from getting arbitrary personnel action? 

Ms. GOWADIA. They have the ability to appeal their situation before the appellate board. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. Do you agree that fairness and consistency in 

due process are important components of the personnel system for 

Federal employees? 

Ms. GOWADIA. Absolutely. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. Inspector Roth, do arbitrary personnel practices 

deter whistleblowers from speaking out about security deficiencies? 

Mr. ROTH. I believe that it’s got a chilling effect. Any time there 

is the threat of some sort of improper personnel practice as a result 

of making a protective disclosure, for example, of a safety situation 

or other kind of misconduct on the part of the agency, that there 

is always that fear that there is a chilling effect that something 

will happen to that person. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. So if TSA employees are reluctant to raise these 

deficiencies they observe, couldn’t this put aviation security at risk? 

Mr. ROTH. Well, that’s absolutely the case. And we get, at DHS, 

something like 20,000 complaints a year from various DHS employees raising exactly those issues. But we do worry, of course, as Ms. 

Lerner does, that those folks can be retaliated against if, in fact, 

the word of their cooperation gets out. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. I’m going to make a statement now. TSA’s arbitrary and inconsistent personnel actions against its employees not 

only affect morale, but they also create serious risk to aviation security. Every Member of Congress is, you know, intimately aware 

of the securities and the responsibilities that are placed on our 

TSA, and we trust them, because we, in our jobs, must fly back and 

forth on a regular basis. 

In TSA, we have a test case of what happens when an agency’s 

employees are excluded from due process protection of Title IV. The 

results are a disaster, and they should never be repeated at any 

Federal agency. To correct what we have seen at TSA, Congress 

should act now to ensure full civil service protection under Title IV 

are available to all TSA employees, including TSA officers. 

And, also, to my Republican colleagues, when we talk about rolling back Federal civil service protections, understand, as we have 

made a commitment here on this committee to ensure that we protect whistleblowers, when we draw back, as Mr. Roth has said, 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
46 

these protections, it has a chilling effect. Because if I’m not going 

to be protected, I’m not going to come forward. 

With that, I yield back my time. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Thank you. 

I now recognize the ranking member, Mr. Cummings. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much. Last week, the committee 

conducted an interview of former deputy administrator of TSA, 

Mark Hatfield, and he totally committed that TSA was, quote, governed by self-direction, end of quote, which, quote, bred misbehavior, quote, and led to toxicity rather than a healthy agency, 

end of quote. 

Mr. Roth, you testified before the committee in November of 2015 

about security failures that you uncovered at the time that Mr. 

Hatfield was serving as deputy administrator. You said that an indepth round of covert testing at TSA found results that you characterized as, quote, disappointing and troubling, end of quote. 

Do you think that the toxic environment in which self-direction 

bred misbehavior, as the former deputy administrator described, 

contributed to the security deficiencies you identified? 

Mr. ROTH. Certainly, what we found—and I think TSA leadership will testify to this as well or has testified to this as well— 

there was a push to move people through the line and ignore sort 

of the security aspects of what they were doing. So, culturally, 

there was enormous pressure on the rank and file to just keep the 

lines moving and not worry as much about security. 

So I think the answer to your question is, yes, we found that 

through culture there that disregarded aviation security. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And so I take it that you found that to be a 

major problem? 

Mr. ROTH. That’s correct, yes. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Considering the mission of TSA? 

Mr. ROTH. Correct. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. So they were probably missing a lot of—missing 

things they should have caught? 

Mr. ROTH. Right. I mean, we have issues with TSA across the entire spectrum of what they do, not only at the checkpoint, but how 

it is that they deal with their own employees, how they deal with 

airport workers, how it is that they guard the perimeter. The challenges that TSA faces are just enormous. I think it is probably the 

most difficult job in DHS, which is really saying something, to try 

to screen 2 million passengers a day, 900,000 different airport employees, with a staff of—and then pay attention to a staff of something like 60,000 people. It is an enormous job, and—— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And dealing with the public, trying to get to 

where they got to go, and I guess many people feeling like they’re 

going through too many changes sometimes? 

Mr. ROTH. Two million passengers a day. So just in a course of 

a 10-minute hearing, that’s hundreds and hundreds of people. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Yeah. Back in 2015, you testified that the most 

critical task facing TSA was, quote, creating a culture of change 

within TSA and giving the TSA workforce the ability to identify 

and address risks without fear of retribution, end of quote. What 

retribution did you observe at TSA, and why did you believe that 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
47 

the most critical task facing the agency was giving the workforce 

the ability to identify risks without fear of retribution? 

Mr. ROTH. We had seen—and some of this is simply in the public 

sphere, public media, about instances, for example, as this committee has highlighted with regard to the forced transfers, for example, and the arbitrary nature of demotions and those kinds of 

things. We had seen that. 

In talking to TSOs and people within TSA, we had gotten a sense 

that there was a culture of fear and intimidation. I will have to say 

with Admiral Neffenger’s approach, it was a breath of fresh air 

that he came in with a different kind of an attitude, not only towards oversight, but how it is that he treated his rank and file. 

The question I have, of course, is how far down that goes into 

what is an immense organization and whether that will continue 

with new leadership. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. This assignment—what do you call it when they 

assign people to different places? 

Mr. ROTH. Directed reassignment, I believe. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Where is that now? I mean, what’s happening 

with that? I think he suspended it, right? Is that right? 

Ms. GOWADIA. Sir, the practice has been discontinued. The only 

time we ask for reassignments is if it is in the interest of security, 

and we certainly only go to it at the very, very last opportune moment to move people across the country that way. We have put in 

controls so that these decisions cannot be made unilaterally. Our 

Office of Human Capital must get into the loop in making the decision. And if a member of the executive service has to be moved, it 

comes to my desk for signature. And we will definitely look for as 

many options as possible and only ask an employee to move if it 

is absolutely in the interest of security. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And so I take it, so that there have been a substantial reduction in—just based on what you just said—— 

Ms. GOWADIA. Yes, indeed. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. —in that type of action? 

Can you tell us what—I mean, where we went? Did we go from 

300 to 5? I mean, what? Can you give me an idea of the reduction? 

Ms. GOWADIA. Sir, I apologize. I do not have exact numbers. But 

what I can tell you is it has not happened since my tenure at—— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Because you agree that that’s a very cold thing 

to do? 

Ms. GOWADIA. Absolutely. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Life is short. 

Ms. GOWADIA. To move people for no reason that is not fully focused to the mission reason, I do not think that is an appropriate 

practice, and we do not do that at TSA anymore. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Okay. 

Let me go to you, Doctor. The former deputy administrator said 

employees got arrows in their backs and were subjected to, you 

know, retribution with regard to personnel practices that made 

them fearful of bringing up security issues. Does that sound like 

an environment in which employees are free to identify risks without fear of retribution? 

Ms. GOWADIA. Mr. Cummings, may I—may I please give you one 

sentence before I go to your—the practices Mr. Hatfield is disVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:51 Sep 12, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\26497.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
48 

cussing is well before my time. And he’s discussing practices even 

before Administrator Neffenger was in place. 

I want very much for the workforce at TSA to know the things 

that ailed them in the past, their leadership today stands behind 

them and will not—not tolerate any retaliation for prohibited personnel practices. That is so important, because a tone has to be set 

here. And you asked IG Roth how far it goes down. I make the 

rounds from the airport level all the way through offices, through 

cubicles, working very hard to make it so that people see the support they get from their leadership. 

Also, we are working on leadership training. We want to make 

it so that the notion of leadership begins on the frontline to the 

TSOs all the way up to leadership, which will help that culture 

change that you were asking. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Yeah, the culture change. But what I’m concerned about is I—you know, I understand what you’re trying to 

do, but how do we put policies in place so that when you leave— 

you know, this—you know, you may be gone. I don’t know when. 

But my point is, how do you put the things in so that they stay 

in place? 

Ms. GOWADIA. Absolutely, sir. So I will tell you, we have had outside—the Department has come in and looked at our personnel 

practices and our policies to make it so that we are now more in 

concert with the Department. We have put in checks and balances. 

But, Congressman, you—the thing that I—I hope—I hope you see 

is you cannot legislate, you cannot mandate, you cannot make by— 

you cannot change that by virtue of a piece of paper. It changes by 

changing the culture. People have to be—people have to feel appreciated. People have to feel supported. And I give you my word, that 

as long as I’m at TSA, that is my quest. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Well, can you apply Title IV? 

Ms. GOWADIA. Sir, we will certainly work on the Title IV notions 

with you, but I would like very much to undertake a study to see 

what it would take. 

But all the privileges afforded by Title IV that our staff tell us 

they want when it comes to in-grade pay increases, et cetera, we 

can work on that by virtue of policy. And I am working very hard 

to make it so that we can afford our staff, by virtue of policy, everything that they want. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Ms. Lerner, you described a practice by TSA 

withholding information that TSA considers attorney-client privilege. You said, and I quote, When TSA refuses to disclose why it 

takes an action, it is impossible for us to investigate whether there 

was retaliation. 

Do you believe that TSA’s refusal to provide the information you 

need hinders the agency’s ability to create an environment in 

which employees are free to identify a risk without fear of retribution? 

Ms. LERNER. Sure. I mean, you need robust enforcement of the 

law, and the law has no meaning unless it’s enforced, and it really 

hinders our ability to make findings when we’re not getting full information from the agency. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Now, Doctor, TSA can have it one way or the 

other but not both. Have you asked the Department of Homeland 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
49 

Security about this so-called attorney-client privilege and provide 

to the OSC all of the information it has requested? 

Ms. GOWADIA. Yes, sir, we have discussed the matter with general counsel. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And what did you come up with? 

Ms. GOWADIA. That it is Department policy to exert attorney-client privilege in certain instances, a very, very small percentage of 

the information. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. When the chairman was asking you about who 

we need to talk to, can you tell me who that was? The person you 

just talked about. 

Ms. GOWADIA. Sir, I did—actually, my staff has been able to get 

us permission to—— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Why don’t you give it to us now. 

Ms. GOWADIA. Joe Maher, Joseph Maher, acting general—— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Can you spell that, please? 

Ms. GOWADIA. J-o-s-e-p-h M-a-h-e-r. He’s our acting general counsel. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And so he would be the one that we would talk 

to to try to figure out what the roadblock is and why they are withholding information? 

Ms. GOWADIA. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Tell me something. You’ve known for weeks that 

this was a deep concern for the committee, and I—and you came 

here, and it seemed like you were unprepared to answer the questions. Help me with that. 

I mean, you knew—you knew we were going to be asking about 

this. Right? I mean, hello. And you know it’s a bipartisan effort. 

And you know we don’t want to be hindered with regard to information. I was just wondering why. 

Ms. GOWADIA. So perhaps I miscommunicated. I was not—I fully 

knew that this was your concern. I just was not aware that Ms. 

Lerner’s staff had had any concerns in being able to come to a resolution in any particular case. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Okay. Well, you all need to talk then. 

Ms. Lerner, y’all need to talk. Huh? We can pull Mr. Roth out, 

y’all can come together. I mean, come on now. We shouldn’t have 

to bring you all over here just so all you can talk. 

You have telephones? Email? 

Ms. GOWADIA. Sir, we’ve already decided we’re going to start that 

partnership. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Good. Good, good. 

I yield back. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Thank you. 

I’m going to recognize myself, and then we’ll go to Mr. Comer. 

Let’s talk about that relationship with the OSC. What do you believe is your legal obligation to provide documents to the OSC? 

What is your legal obligation? 

Ms. GOWADIA. Sir, we have a legal obligation to provide documents to OSC. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. I find that curious, because who is 

Francine Kerner? 

Ms. GOWADIA. She’s chief counsel at TSA. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. And how long has she been in that role? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
50 

Ms. GOWADIA. I do believe Ms. Kerner’s been there since the 

start of TSA. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. So she was quote—this is a quote. This is 

February 21st, okay, of this year. Here’s what her quote was when 

she visited with us: ‘‘TSA has no legal obligation to turn over documents to OSC,’’ end quote. 

How is it that she says there’s no legal obligation, and you gave 

this committee a letter yesterday that says, quote, ‘‘TSA recognizes 

its legal obligation to provide documents to the Office of Special 

Counsel and does so regularly,’’ end quote? How do you rectify? 

Ms. GOWADIA. Sir, I was not in the meeting in which Ms. Kerner 

is alleged to have said that. It is my understanding that she was 

using that phrase in context to the attorney-client privilege actions, 

not in the generality. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Not in the generality. No legal obligation. 

You say there is a legal obligation. 

Well, how would you describe your relationship with the OSC? 

Ms. GOWADIA. My personal relationship with the OSC has only 

just begun, and I—I can promise you that I will extend to Ms. 

Lerner an arm of partnership to make it so that if there are differences, they can be resolved. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. And how would you—that’s your personal 

one. How would you describe the overall TSA relationship with the 

OSC? 

Ms. GOWADIA. Sir, it is my understanding that lawyer to lawyer, 

they do have a very good working relationship. At least that is, certainly, our side of—our side of it. My lawyers have never said that 

they’ve had any issue working with OSC. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Who is Steve Colon? 

Ms. GOWADIA. I do believe Steve Colon is presently acting in a 

different capacity, but he used to be in the Office of Chief Counsel. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. He was the assistant chief counsel under 

Francine Kerner, correct? 

Ms. GOWADIA. Yes. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. And he was detailed to head—and this is 

what’s absolutely stunning. He was detailed to head the TSA Office 

of Professional Responsibility. Correct? 

Ms. GOWADIA. Yes, sir. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Let me put up an email that he wrote. I’ll 

read this to you: ‘‘Jeff, if you can join us, I’d appreciate it.’’ Sorry. 

‘‘I’m done being conciliatory with the OSC. They have been a nightmare to deal with for the employment advice folks. If they want 

war, they got one. Unless the evidence stinks.’’ 

You can go ahead and put that down. 

Does that sound like a responsive TSA to the OSC? 

Ms. GOWADIA. No, sir, it does not. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Did you fire him? 

Ms. GOWADIA. Oh, no, sir. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Are you going to fire his butt? 

Ms. GOWADIA. No, sir. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. I would. I’d fire that guy. And you know 

what, until you clean house with the legal folks in your agency, 

you’re going to have a lot of problems. That is not the kind of attitude. ‘‘We’re going to go to war with the OSC’’? Are you familiar 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
51 

with the law? Are you familiar with the code that comes out of the 

OPM regulations? 

You can tell me it’s all rosy, but when your chief legal counsel, 

who has been there since the inception, is saying there’s no legal 

obligation, she is not abiding by the law. 

Ms. GOWADIA. Mr. Chaffetz, please let me leave you with no 

doubt to the matter. That is unacceptable. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Then what are you going to do about it? 

Ms. GOWADIA. He will—he has, I do believe already, been disciplined, but we will look into it. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. And you’re going to tell us what that discipline is? 

Ms. GOWADIA. Yes. Please understand, sir, that the counselors 

that work for us also report to the Department, so I have to work 

this out with the Department. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. And you know what, you talked about the 

culture. We get culture reports, and DHS routinely is at the bottom 

of the heap. I mean, they—they take the 320 agencies out there 

and guess who’s at the bottom of the bottom? Homeland Security. 

TSA, Secret Service, we deal with it. There’s a common denominator. Okay? The common denominator is Homeland Security. 

In order to enrich the culture, you have to have confidence that 

when something goes awry, there is a fair and honest hearing of 

that information. And if you have a whistleblower who believes 

they’ve been retaliated against, we need a fair arbiter to come in 

and look at the facts, all of the facts. You’re not providing those 

facts to the OSC, and every employee knows it. They know the 

deck is stacked against them, and they don’t get a fair reading. 

And you know what, if you want to change that culture, people 

have to be confident that whether you’re at the top of the food 

chain or the new employee who’s just going to work at the TSA, 

if something goes awry, you’re going to get a fair hearing. It doesn’t 

mean we presuppose the conclusion, but when the OSC, the fair, 

independent arbiter here, doesn’t get all the information, guess 

what? They can—you can’t look anybody in the eye and tell them 

that they had their case heard out. 

Of all those things I just said, what would you disagree with? 

Ms. GOWADIA. Sir, I would not disagree with you that a fair and 

a robust investigation into a person’s allegations should be conducted. Just as the whistleblowers have rights, the allegations are 

made against another employee, and they have rights too. So the 

due process must go through. We must follow through on the process. I agree with you on that. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Ms. Lerner, your perspective on that? 

Ms. LERNER. You know, when we talk about changing the culture, there are a lot of things that an agency can do. But, you 

know, by cooperating with OSC, by providing these documents, 

that could really help. You know, I think that there’s just some 

misinformation that may be going on, and we can, hopefully, clear 

that up. But, you know, whistleblower protections are key. 

Other things could help too. I think the full protections of Title 

IV applying to TSA would be very helpful so that there’s a—more 

of a feeling of fairness in employment actions so that hiring deciVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:51 Sep 12, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\26497.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
52 

sions and promotion decisions are perceived as fair. But I think the 

first place to start is where the protections already lie as with—— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. I want to recognize Mr. Comer, but I’ve got 

to go through this—in fact, let me do that, and then go through 

this list of things that I need you all to provide. 

Let’s—I’ll yield back. 

And let’s now recognize Mr. Comer of Kentucky. 

Mr. COMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

These questions are for Dr. Gowadia. On May 12, 2016, when 

TSA’s administrator at the time testified before the committee, he 

was questioned in detail on how he would respond to whistleblower 

allegations of retaliation, including the improper use of directed reassignments. I will read you several of the statements he made, 

and I think we may have a slide. 

Slide one: ‘‘I will await the Office of Special Counsel. I think it’s 

important that we look for an independent review of that to determine whether or not there was improper use.’’ And he’s talking 

about of directed reassignments. 

Slide two: ‘‘I’m very interested in the results of the Office of Special Counsel investigation into the existing cases with the individuals who appeared before you. Depending on those findings, I will 

take immediate action against that.’’ 

And slide three, and, again, he said: ‘‘Depending on what they 

find, it may point to an appropriate discipline.’’ 

And my first question: How can TSA tell Congress it will base 

its responses on OSC’s investigations and then refuse to give OSC 

the documents necessary to complete those investigations? 

Ms. GOWADIA. Sir, it is—in listening to Ms. Lerner, I am—I am 

beginning to appreciate that she may need more information, 

which is why we were—we offered to give her the privileged log. 

Now, I will tell you that, to date, we have not received any information that says—at least to the best of my knowledge, information that says the information that has been redacted has interfered with OSC’s ability to render a verdict on—I believe it’s 46 

cases that they have so far taken up for TSA. 

Mr. COMER. My second question: Do you agree with the administrator that it’s important for OSC to complete an independent review of whistleblower allegations against TSA? 

Ms. GOWADIA. Absolutely. 

Mr. COMER. Okay. Next question: Is there a conflict of interest 

for Francine Kerner and the Office of Chief Counsel to withhold 

documents from OSC investigations when multiple whistleblowers 

who reported retaliation to OSC alleged Kerner was involved in the 

misconduct against them? 

Ms. GOWADIA. So when it comes to the attorney-client privilege 

information, again, we are bound by that through the Department’s 

guidance. So I—I—we are not in a position to unilaterally waive 

that privilege. 

Mr. COMER. One statement here of observation. I’m new. I’m a 

freshman, and campaigning for the past year, people talk about the 

swamp, and they’re frustrated, frustrated with Congress, but— 

their frustrated with bureaucracies that just aren’t accountable. 

And it seems like, you know, this committee’s been trying for a 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
53 

long time to determine and fix some problems and get some transparency, and in my opinion, it doesn’t look like we have that. And 

I’m looking forward to getting some results and finding out what— 

what’s going on over there and how we can fix the problem. 

I yield back my time, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Thank you. 

I now recognize the ranking member, Mr. Cummings. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I just want to get to the bottom line. Obviously, 

you’re not getting all the information. You—the problem—it sounds 

like somebody or bodies has not been getting you the information, 

because if Ms. Lerner needs information to do what she has to do, 

it sounds like there’s some block here somewhere. And I think you 

need to get to the people in your agency—I mean, just as—I’m just 

sitting here listening—and figure out who’s not giving you information. I’m just—now, maybe I’m assuming too much. 

Ms. GOWADIA. Mr. Cummings, please let me leave you with no 

doubt in this matter—— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Whoa, whoa, whoa. Before you say anything, it’s 

either you or them. 

Ms. GOWADIA. It’s me. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Okay. Then you need to explain that. 

Ms. GOWADIA. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. So now you need to tell the chairman why you’re 

blocking it. Now I’m putting it on you. I tried to give you an out, 

but you didn’t take it, so—— 

Ms. GOWADIA. Absolutely not, sir. The buck definitely stops at 

my desk. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Okay. Okay. 

Ms. GOWADIA. I take responsibility for decisions made at TSA. 

Now, when it comes to the attorney-client privilege issue, again, we 

are not independent—— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Right. You’ve got lawyers to advise you. 

Ms. GOWADIA. I have to follow the Department’s guidance and response. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Right. I got that. Okay. 

Ms. GOWADIA. But I have—— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. It sounds like you didn’t know Ms. Lerner—the 

extent of Ms. Lerner’s concerns. That’s what I’m getting to. It 

seems like you didn’t—I’m just listening to you. It sounds like you 

did not know the extent of her concerns. 

Ms. GOWADIA. This is true. I did not. Can I—— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Whoa, whoa, whoa. I know you want the buck 

to stop with you. I’m trying to get to whoever is not getting the information to you now. 

So you just said you didn’t know the extent of the problem, but 

then you said the buck stops with you. Well, what I’m saying is, 

something is happening before it even gets to you, if you don’t 

know the extent of the problem. Does that make sense? 

Ms. GOWADIA. Certainly, sir. But what I can do is I can ask more 

questions, and I will. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Right. You need to. 

Ms. GOWADIA. And I will. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And what I’m trying to tell you, I’m trying to 

help you. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
54 

Ms. GOWADIA. Indeed, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. What I’m trying to tell you is that somebody is 

not giving you the information that you need, period, or you would 

not have—this wouldn’t be an issue. I would be—if I were in your 

shoes, and my staff, and I didn’t have the information I needed, 

and I had to walk into a hearing like this and have somebody tell 

me they have not gotten the information, and I—and I don’t know 

it, there’s a problem, major problem. You follow me? 

Ms. GOWADIA. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. So I don’t—I just—like I said, I’m just trying to 

get to the bottom line. Because, you know, we’re just trying to get 

this stuff resolved and move along. We’ve got a lot of issues we deal 

with here, and hopefully, we’ll be able to get it resolved. When you 

get back to the office, maybe you can kind of cut through all that. 

All right. 

Thank you, all. I’m finished. 

Ms. GOWADIA. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Thank you. 

I’ll recognize myself, and then we’ll recognize Mr. Meadows of 

North Carolina. 

Ms. Lerner, does our committee have the full list of concerns or 

outstanding cases that you need more information from? Do we 

have that list? 

Ms. LERNER. I’m not sure if you have the list, but if you’d like 

it, we can certainly get it to you. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Let’s just confirm that we have the full list 

of where you have concerns. 

Ms. Gowadia, I just want to clarify that we do expect the TSA 

to turn over all information that’s been withheld from the OSC, 

and we expect that to be done by March 10. That’s a week from 

Friday. Okay? 

That information should be given to both the OSC as well as the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. So if you’re 

choosing to withhold documents, you’re making an election to withhold documents from the OSC, but you’re also withholding documents from Congress. And I’m just being really crystal clear here 

with you. You don’t withhold these documents from Homeland— 

from the inspector general. So you’re being very selective in your 

application of, quote/unquote, ‘‘attorney-client privilege,’’ which we 

don’t recognize. 

If you don’t provide those by March 10, I will issue a subpoena, 

and we’ll—then you’ll be on the clock. And then if you don’t comply 

with that subpoena, you will be in contempt, and we will pursue 

that. And I’m just trying to be crystal clear on the process. It’s 

your—you said the buck stops with you, but we’re going to call in 

the attorneys. And you can blame it on Homeland, but you are the 

acting director, and that’s the tough spot you take when you’re the 

top of the food chain. 

You also have confirmed to the committee that you will provide 

logs of the information that’s been withheld from the OSC. Again, 

not recognizing that you have that right, but you’re going to provide that information to the OSC as well as this committee also by 

March 10. Correct? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
55 

Ms. GOWADIA. Sir, I—I—we will start providing on a rolling basis 

immediately—— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. No, no, no, no. 

Ms. GOWADIA. Sir, I cannot promise you—— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. How many people—how many people work 

for you? 

Ms. GOWADIA. 60,000. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. You’re going to provide that. 

Ms. GOWADIA. So 45,000 of them are out on the field. We have 

to appreciate that this may take some time. I do not want to leave 

you with the fact that I’m trying to stonewall you. I hope that my 

people back in the shop have already started working production. 

But I can promise—— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. It’s a log. It’s a log. You have tens of thousands of employees at your disposal. 

I’m just telling you, that’s what this committee is going to ask 

you to do. We’ve been asking for this for a long time. It should be 

no surprise. You said you have a log. It shouldn’t be that hard to 

provide it. 

Ms. GOWADIA. So I did not say we have a log. The offer I made 

was, moving forward, we will always provide a log. You are asking 

me to go back to, again, a number you don’t want to hear, but 

50,000 pages to figure out what percentage of that was redacted 

and from that develop a log. We will make our best effort to get 

it to you by Friday, but if we don’t make the full—full log available 

for the retroactive instances, we will start producing it on a rolling 

basis, which is something we do with the OSC and something we 

certainly do with you. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. You put anybody that you need on top of 

that, prioritize the safety of the public, but we’re also here to protect the safety of the employees. And so that’s the timeline, and 

that’s what I expect from you. 

I also need the names of any other individuals at Homeland Security who have advised the TSA to withhold or apply the privilege. 

Agreed? 

Ms. GOWADIA. Yes, sir. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. And that too by March 10. 

You also have agreed to provide the discipline of Mr. Colon. And 

that too you can provide by March 10? 

Ms. GOWADIA. If the discipline has already taken place. I—we 

will have—I’ll have to look at it. I don’t know—— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. I thought you said he was disciplined? 

Ms. GOWADIA. No, I said he may be in the process of being disciplined. I don’t know that he has. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. You’ll give us an update regarding this? 

Ms. GOWADIA. I will give you an update. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Fair enough. And then you’re going to provide the government guidance or advice regarding withholding information from OSC, correct? 

Ms. GOWADIA. I’m sorry. Would you say that again. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Provide the departmental guidance or advice regarding withholding information from the OSC. 

Ms. GOWADIA. I will work with the Department to get you something on that. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
56 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Again, we expect that information by 

March 10. 

Let’s now recognize the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. 

Meadows. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank each of you. My apologies. I had four or five things going 

on. 

So, Dr. Gowadia, I want to come to you. And thank you for the 

meeting yesterday. And, obviously, we’ve got counsel here. I thank 

her as well. 

And I guess I’m a little confused, because yesterday, we talked 

about a reset. We talked about going forward and really working 

this. But my staff informed me, and that’s why I came back, that 

we’re, again, trying to insert an attorney-client privilege and keep 

things from OSC. And I didn’t leave with that impression yesterday 

from our private meeting. Am I misinformed? 

Ms. GOWADIA. Mr. Meadows, I—I—I apologize if I left you with 

the notion that I could do something without the Department’s 

guidance. I still have to follow Department’s guidance. What I offered to you—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. So are you saying that the Secretary of DHS concurs with that? Because I’ll call him. 

Ms. GOWADIA. No, sir, I am not speaking for the Secretary at all. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So then what is—I was very clear yesterday. In 

fact, in ways I was a little bit more blunt than I wanted to be, and 

acknowledged that to your counsel that was there, and yet I 

thought the agreements that we had yesterday coming out of that 

meeting, and it sounds like you’re walking back now, Dr. Gowadia. 

Are you not? 

Ms. GOWADIA. No, sir, I don’t believe I am. I believe you mentioned that you did not think it was appropriate—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, and you agreed that you would give the documents to OSC unredacted. 

Ms. GOWADIA. No, sir, I do not believe I did that. And if I left 

you with that impression, I deeply apologize. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, I should have had a stenographer there 

then. I mean, you know—Dr. Gowadia, let me just tell you, I told 

you I would give you grace. And I’m willing to. I’m willing to say 

that there’s been a lot of mistakes that have been made here. But 

what I will not do is have a premeeting that went really well, and 

then have you, after you went back and apparently talked to somebody, and come in here today and suggest that it’s not okay. 

Ms. GOWADIA. Mr. Meadows, again, I sincerely apologize if I left 

you with the impression that I could give away the attorney-client—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Who can? 

Ms. GOWADIA. It has to come to us for guidance through the Department, general counsel at the Department. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. So I asked you yesterday for what statute. You said there wasn’t a statute. All right? So I asked you for 

what rules or regs, and you said it was Department guidance. 

Ms. GOWADIA. Uh-huh. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I understand that you don’t have that written. Is 

that correct? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
57 

Ms. GOWADIA. Not to my knowledge, sir. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. So if you don’t have written guidance, 

who the heck gave it to you? 

Ms. GOWADIA. So the attorneys—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Who told you that you have guidance? 

Ms. GOWADIA. The general counsel, the acting general counsel. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. So the very person that I’ve had concerns with, that I expressed to you yesterday—general counsel for 

who? 

Ms. GOWADIA. General counsel for the Department, sir. 

Mr. MEADOWS. For the Department of Homeland Security or 

TSA? 

Ms. GOWADIA. Yes, sir. Department of Homeland Security. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So the general counsel, between yesterday and 

today—— 

Ms. GOWADIA. No, not between yesterday and today. Again, going 

back to yesterday—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. So when did you talk to the general counsel about 

this guidance? 

Ms. GOWADIA. So before—well before our meeting yesterday, 

which is why I am a little shocked that I left you—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. So maybe I misunderstood you. So let me 

ask you this: How can we believe the general guidance of verbal 

communication from your general counsel—how—how can Congress look at that? Do you not see a problem with that? 

Ms. GOWADIA. I do, sir, and this is why I am committed to working with the Department to get you something. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. So let me just tell you: If you will comply—I don’t recognize the attorney-client privilege, and you know 

that I don’t. 

Ms. GOWADIA. Yes, sir, that was clear yesterday. 

Mr. MEADOWS. That was clear. The other part of that, the chairman doesn’t recognize it, and neither does the ranking member recognize it. 

Ms. GOWADIA. Yes, sir, that is clear. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All we want is to make sure that Ms. Lerner can 

get her job done and not be stonewalled. And I told you yesterday 

that I was willing to have a reset, but today’s testimony is very, 

very troubling, because it sounds like that we had a nice kumbaya 

kind of meeting, and then all of a sudden, we’re here today with 

entrenched rhetoric coming from the general counsel. Is that not it? 

Ms. GOWADIA. No, Mr. Meadows. Again, I deeply appreciate the 

time you took to visit with me yesterday. 

Mr. MEADOWS. No, I appreciate your time. Let me just say this, 

it needs to be productive time, though. 

Ms. GOWADIA. Absolutely. And one of the promises that I made 

to you yesterday was I would reach out to Ms. Kerner—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. But you’re saying that the things you redacted won’t interfere with her investigation. 

Ms. GOWADIA. And I went back—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. That’s your sworn testimony. 

Ms. GOWADIA. I went back—in fact, as part of my testimony, I 

recounted something I said to you yesterday. It was, to the best of 

my knowledge at that point, that nothing had—— 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
58 

Mr. MEADOWS. You used the qualifier, to the best of your knowledge. 

Ms. GOWADIA. And so when I went back from our meeting, I 

asked my staff to go through all their emails and determine if that 

was factual. When they came back with two—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. Right. 

Ms. GOWADIA. —at that moment I said to them, from now on, 

policy is if you ever redact anything, you will provide the OSC with 

the privilege log. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. So let me ask you this: Has the OSC 

ever disclosed things that were not appropriate to your knowledge? 

Ms. GOWADIA. No, sir, not to my knowledge. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, then why do you redact it then? If they’ve 

never had a problem, why do you redact it? 

Ms. GOWADIA. So there are multiple parties, as we discussed, in 

an ongoing case. 

Mr. MEADOWS. But if they’ve never released any of that, why are 

you concerned? 

Let me tell you why you’re concerned. You’re trying to cover up 

for something that may or may not have been done. And I told you 

I would reset. But at the same time, if you’re not going to reset and 

give her what she needs, we will look at this—with the chairman’s 

indulgence, we will look at this. We will ask for subpoenas. We will 

make sure that we get the information. I am not going to be 

stonewalled. 

Ms. GOWADIA. Sir, it is absolutely not my intent to stonewall you. 

And I do appreciate that we have a reset and our ability to share 

information and be absolutely transparent, but I do appreciate that 

there are certain attorney-client privileged issues—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. No, I don’t appreciate that. 

Ms. GOWADIA. I do. I have to work with the Department. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. 

Ms. GOWADIA. I promise you, I will take it back—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. So should I call General Kelly? 

Ms. GOWADIA. Please don’t do that until I’ve—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, let me just tell you, you’ve got a short fuse. 

Because I can’t imagine that General Kelly would like to cover up 

anything. 

Ms. GOWADIA. Sir, please. I hope you can—you cannot imagine 

that I would want to cover up anything. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, that’s how it appears, Dr. Gowadia. That’s 

what I’m saying, just get Ms. Lerner what she needs. Okay? 

I yield back. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. I thank the gentleman. 

I—what—Ms. Gowadia, if the Homeland Security guidance violates Federal law, which one are you going to follow? 

Ms. GOWADIA. The Federal law, sir. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Mr. Roth, what information is TSA not providing you? 

Mr. ROTH. Nothing. They’re completely cooperative. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Do you give everything to Homeland Security’s inspector general? 

Ms. GOWADIA. Yes, sir, we do. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Do you give everything to the OSC? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
59 

Ms. GOWADIA. Other than the attorney-client privileged redacted 

information, yes, sir, we do. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. So why don’t you recognize the—your socalled made up attorney-client privilege? Why isn’t that true with 

the inspector general? 

Ms. GOWADIA. Sir, they are part of the Department. The guidance applies external to the Department. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. External to the Department. 

You’re part of the United States Government, correct? 

Ms. GOWADIA. We all are, sir. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Who do you work for? 

Ms. GOWADIA. The American public. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. That’s right. That’s right. That’s who’s paying. And part of what we did is we set up a statute, law, Federal 

law, that you said you were going to abide by that allows the Office 

of Special Counsel to dive into these issues. 

So you do treat the inspector general different than you do the 

OSC? 

Ms. GOWADIA. In this instance, yes, we do. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Do we have any problems with that, Ms. 

Lerner? 

Ms. LERNER. Yeah. Let me just say, we do get SSI information. 

We get sensitive security information from TSA. We’ve never had 

a problem getting that. We handle it appropriately. They can mark 

it as sensitive. 

I’m confused about why they don’t provide us with what they 

consider to be attorney-client. We can—we can handle that information the same way we handle the SSI information. If they want 

to mark something as privileged, we’ll make sure it’s handled in a 

confidential way. We’re not going to release it without talking to 

them. I can address any—— 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. You have a solid reputation. You don’t have 

to convince us that you have the reputation. And we’ve set it up 

so that you could be the one to be the independent arbiter here. 

Ms. Gowadia, is the White House external to the Department? 

Ms. GOWADIA. I—yes, I imagine—yes, they are, sir, but I don’t 

know—I—if the next question is do you share it with the White 

House, I don’t know the answer to that. I’ll have to take that for 

the record. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. Yeah. It’s just the logic here, it just doesn’t 

make sense. It’s just kind of comical, and that’s the problem. And 

you’re unique. You’re an outlier. And—— 

Ms. GOWADIA. The Department, sir. This guidance applies not 

just to TSA but all departments. 

Chairman CHAFFETZ. No. I think you’re—I think you’re a very 

nice person. You have a host of issues that you have to deal with. 

I think the guidance here that you’re getting is wrong. I think 

it’s—violates Federal law. I think it’s unacceptable and it’s something that now has the full attention of this committee, I assure. 

And we are going to go to the ends of the earth to—and, really, at 

the ultimate, what we’re trying to do, both sides of the aisle, we’re 

trying to protect whistleblowers so they get a fair hearing. 

But you know what, they can’t get a fair hearing if the OSC only 

gets a portion of the documentation. Even though the law says they 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
60 

get all of the information, and they are set up to do this, they are 

authorized by Congress, they do work for the American people. We 

do appropriate money, even though some would like more money. 

That’s the problem and the challenge. 

And there is a conflict when that attorney may or may not have 

been involved in some of those decisions in covering that up. I 

think you do have a cultural problem with the attorneys as well, 

both at TSA and at Homeland Security, as was demonstrated by 

the email. And I am very curious to see what the discipline was 

for that sort of attitude and approach. And I find it wholly unacceptable. 

I do appreciate everybody who is here and sharing testimony 

today. We look forward to following it up. And the committee now 

stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:38 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(61) 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
62 

Æ 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 26 here 26497.026