U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

27–019 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

S. Hrg. 115–357 

NOMINATIONS OF DAVID J. GLAWE AND 

DAVID P. PEKOSKE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

NOMINATIONS OF DAVID J. GLAWE TO BE UNDER SECRETARY FOR 

INTELLIGENCE AND ANALYSIS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY, AND DAVID P. PEKOSKE, TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY, 

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

HOMELAND SECURITY 

JULY 11, 2017 

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

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

( 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin, Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

JON TESTER, Montana 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire 

KAMALA D. HARRIS, California 

CHRISTOPHER R. HIXON, Staff Director 

GABRIELLE D’ADAMO SINGER, Chief Counsel 

MARGARET E. DAUM, Minority Staff Director 

ANNA E. LAITIN, Minority Policy Adviser 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Chief Clerk 

BONNI E. DINERSTEIN, Hearing Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Johnson ............................................................................................... 1 

Senator McCaskill ............................................................................................ 2 

Senator Portman .............................................................................................. 8 

Senator Tester .................................................................................................. 10 

Senator Lankford .............................................................................................. 13 

Senator Harris .................................................................................................. 16 

Senator Hassan ................................................................................................. 18 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 20 

Senator Paul ..................................................................................................... 23 

Prepared statements: 

Senator Johnson ............................................................................................... 33 

Senator McCaskill ............................................................................................ 35 

WITNESSES 

TUESDAY, JULY 11, 2017 

David J. Glawe to be Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis, U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 38 

Responses to post-hearing questions .............................................................. 41 

Responses to post-hearing questions from SSCI ............................................ 52 

Letter of support ............................................................................................... 64 

David P. Pekoske to be Assistant Secretary, Transportation Security Administration, U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 65 

Biographical and financial information .......................................................... 68 

Letter from the Office of Government Ethics ................................................. 80 

Responses to pre-hearing questions ................................................................ 83 

Responses to post-hearing questions .............................................................. 99 

(1) 

1The prepared statement of Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 33. 

NOMINATIONS OF DAVID J. GLAWE AND 

DAVID P. PEKOSKE 

TUESDAY, JULY 11, 2017 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to other business, at 10:03 a.m., 

in room SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Johnson, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Johnson, Portman, Paul, Lankford, Enzi, 

Daines, McCaskill, Carper, Tester, Heitkamp, Peters, Hassan, and 

Harris. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHNSON1

Chairman JOHNSON. This nomination hearing is called to order. 

We are meeting today for a nomination hearing to consider David 

J. Glawe to be Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis for 

the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS); and Admiral 

David Pekoske to be Assistant Secretary for Transportation Security Administration (TSA), U.S. Department of Homeland Security. 

These are two incredibly important positions, particularly at this 

point in time with all the threats we face to our transportation sector as well as across the globe and the threats to our homeland. 

So the Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) at 

the Department of Homeland Security is responsible for leading the 

Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis and also serves as the Department’s Chief Intelligence Officer. 

In these roles, the Under Secretary is responsible for fusing the Department’s streams of intelligence and analysis to develop a common operational understanding of threats to the homeland, and 

sharing relevant information within DHS among State, local, and 

private sector partners. As the Department’s Chief Intelligence Officer, the Under Secretary is also responsible for overseeing intelligence across DHS and collaborating with intelligence community 

(IC) partners. 

Multiple reviews of the Office of Intelligence and Analysis by this 

Committee, watchdog organizations, and others have raised concerns about the quality and value of its intelligence, the lack of coordination of component intelligence activities, and the low morale 

and human resources (HR) challenges facing the office. The next 

Under Secretary has an opportunity to strengthen the Depart-
2 

1The prepared statement of Senator McCaskill appears in the Appendix on page 35. 

ment’s intelligence program and, therefore, help Secretary Kelly secure the Nation. 

The DHS Assistant Secretary, also known as the Transportation 

Security Administrator, is responsible for the safety and security of 

the country’s transportation systems, ensuring the free flow of people and commerce. The Administrator’s job is to assess intelligence 

and threats to the Nation’s transportation sector and direct the approximately 53,000 Transportation Security Administration employees in protecting hundreds of millions of travelers each and 

every year. 

The TSA was created after the September 11th attacks to disrupt 

future terrorist plots and safeguard the Nation’s transportation 

system. The agency oversees aviation security as well as rail, highway, mass transit, and pipeline security with an overall budget of 

over $7 billion. Aviation remains a target for foreign and domestic 

terrorists. To achieve its mission, the TSA need to continually improve its screening capabilities and strive to adapt to the terrorist 

threats of the future. The next Administrator has the opportunity 

to increase the TSA’s screening capabilities, improve workforce morale, and deliver effective and cost-efficient security to the traveling 

public. 

With that, I will turn it over to Ranking Member McCaskill. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCASKILL1

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you 

holding this hearing, and I want to thank the two nominees for 

their willingness to serve. I am particularly pleased to be here 

today given the strong qualifications and distinguished careers of 

the nominees that are in front of us today. You have both had exemplary public service careers, and we need individuals like you 

leading our homeland security and intelligence agencies. 

You both have difficult jobs ahead of you. The offices you seek 

to lead are essential ones for the protection of our homeland. TSA 

has the visible role of protecting air travel as well as the less-wellknown job of securing ground, rail, and maritime security. And the 

Office of Intelligence and Analysis is a component of the intelligence community that informs the work of all DHS agencies and 

is charged with sharing intelligence with local, State, and tribal 

governments. 

In addition to the challenges you will face in executing the mission of these organizations, you will face a serious challenge given 

the current morale of the workforce in these offices. Both TSA and 

I&A are seen by their employees as being among the worst places 

to work in the Federal Government. According to a survey of Federal agencies, I&A is ranked 304th out of 305 Federal agency subcomponents in employee morale. TSA is doing only slightly better, 

ranked at 303 out of 305. Strong leadership will be necessary to 

strengthen the workforce at these offices and ensure that these 

components are recruiting and retaining the most qualified talent. 

The culture and sentiment in an office enormously contribute to 

hiring and keeping the best personnel, who in turn are working 

hard to keep us safe. 
3 

Mr. Pekoske, with threats to our transportation system on the 

rise, TSA has an essential role in protecting our homeland. I have 

made clear several times my concerns about the President’s proposed cuts to the TSA budget, particularly when it comes to funds 

for counterterrorism programs. Once you are confirmed, I expect 

you to make clear to the Administration at the highest levels what 

you need to do your job, and you should not back down until the 

Administration proposes a budget that works for you. 

Mr. Glawe, I expect you to ensure that the work of your office 

remains apolitical and informs decisions at the highest level of the 

Department and the intelligence community. This Administration 

should be making policy decisions based on intelligence and facts, 

and it is your office that has the data and the analytic tools to 

make sure that the policy decisions are sound. 

I look forward to our conversation today and working with you 

in the future. Mr. Pekoske, I understand you told the Committee 

staff this week that you would come in to sit down with them once 

you have been on the job for several months. I really appreciate 

that offer, and I expect my staff will take you up on it. I hope both 

of you will remain accessible and responsible to this Committee 

once you are confirmed. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator McCaskill. 

The Committee wants to welcome the witnesses and your families. I want to thank you for your past service and your willingness 

to serve again. I also want to thank your families for their sacrifice 

because these are big, important jobs and you are going to be busy 

and away from home. So it is certainly going to be a family sacrifice as well. And I know in your opening statements you will introduce your family members and your friends and supporters during your comments. 

It is the tradition of this Committee to swear in witnesses, so if 

you will both rise and raise your right hand? Do you swear that 

the testimony you will give before this Committee will be the truth, 

the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you, God? 

Mr. GLAWE. I do. 

Admiral PEKOSKE. I do. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Please be seated. 

Our first nominee is David Glawe. Mr. Glawe has extensive experience in national security and law enforcement. He currently 

serves as a Special Assistant to the President and until recently 

served as the Assistant Commissioner and Chief Intelligence Officer in the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) component at the 

Department of Homeland Security. Mr. Glawe has previously 

served as a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agent and as a 

Federal Agent with the U.S. Postal Inspection Service and started 

his career in public service as a Houston police officer. Mr. Glawe 

has a certificate from the John F. Kennedy School of Government 

at Harvard University and a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Northern Iowa. 

Mr. Glawe, in this role I think your extensive background in law 

enforcement across the spectrum, from local, State, and Federal, is 

just going to serve you well. It is just crucial. So, again, we appreciate your willingness to serve and look forward to your testimony. 
4 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Glawe appears in the Appendix on page 38. 

TESTIMONY OF DAVID J. GLAWE1 TO BE UNDER SECRETARY 

FOR INTELLIGENCE AND ANALYSIS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. GLAWE. Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member McCaskill, 

Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to be before you today as the President’s nominee for Under Secretary for 

Intelligence and Analysis at the Department of Homeland Security. 

I am honored to have been nominated for this position by President 

Trump, and I am humbled to have received the support of Secretary Kelly, Deputy Secretary Duke, and Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Coats. 

Before I begin, I would like to take a moment to recognize my 

family. I am grateful for their support and sacrifices to allow me 

this opportunity. With us today is the bedrock of my life, my 20- 

year partner and husband, Perry Goerish, a Supervisory Special 

Agent at the FBI’s Washington Field Office. Foremost in our mind 

are our two wonderful children, Alexis and Wyatt. I also want to 

thank the rest of my family and friends and co-workers who have 

supported me throughout my life. I would not have this opportunity 

without them. 

The mission statement of DHS is clear and direct: With honor 

and integrity, we will safeguard the American people, our homeland, and our values. DHS faces a complex and evolving threat environment and must work across the Federal Government, and in 

concert with our State, local, tribal, territorial, and private sector 

partners. As the only member of the U.S. intelligence community 

statutorily charged with sharing intelligence and information with 

our State, local, tribal and private sector partners, I&A enables 

DHS to execute this mission. 

Secretary Kelly’s guidance is clear: He expects I&A to provide 

timely, useful, and operationally relevant intelligence to the DHS 

enterprise, the intelligence community, and our State and local 

partners. I have over 24 years in law enforcement and intelligence 

experience and, if confirmed, I will work to apply that knowledge 

I acquired and the lessons learned to make I&A a premier intelligence organization that drives operations, intelligence integration, 

information sharing, and the delivery of unique analysis to operators and decisionmakers that enables them to identify 

vulnerabilities, position resources, and ultimately mitigate threats. 

I&A has one of the broadest customer bases in the intelligence 

community, and meeting the many and varied demands of those 

customers is a challenge. I intend to focus I&A’s analytic capacity 

on areas where they are positioned to add value, areas like trade, 

travel, cyber, border, marine, and aviation security, rather than duplicating work done elsewhere. 

I&A’s greatest strength, without question, is its people. If confirmed, it will be my honor to lead the homeland intelligence professionals at I&A as we endeavor to implement Secretary Kelly’s 

vision by meeting the needs of the primary customers, integrating 

intelligence and operations, and making I&A a diverse, mission-focused, and productive environment for the workforce. 
5 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Pekoske appears in the Appendix on page 65. 

In closing, I would like to take a moment to recognize the important role that Congress plays in the success of I&A. If confirmed, 

I pledge to enable the Committee to fill that role by keeping you 

informed on I&A activities and developments. I am committed to 

transparency, and I look forward to partnering with you to move 

the organization forward and best protect the homeland. 

Mr. Chairman, I will stop there and submit the remainder of my 

comments for the record. Thank you again for the opportunity to 

appear before you today, and I look forward to answering your 

questions. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Glawe. 

Our next nominee is Vice Admiral David Pekoske. Vice Admiral 

Pekoske was Vice Admiral and Chief Operating Officer (COO) of 

the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) when he retired in 2010 after 32 

years of service, and, again, we thank you for that service. Prior 

to becoming Vice Admiral, he was the Commander for the Pacific 

Area Defense Forces, protecting 73 million square miles of territory 

throughout the Pacific region. After retiring from the Coast Guard, 

Vice Admiral Pekoske was group president for the national security 

group at A–T Solutions and vice president for national programs at 

Pacific Architecture and Engineering. He has extensive experience 

in the homeland security field from his time in the Coast Guard 

and in the private sector covering crisis management, strategic operations, financial and risk management, and counterterrorism. 

Vice Admiral Pekoske received his Bachelor’s degree from the U.S. 

Coast Guard Academy and holds two Master’s degrees, one from 

Columbia University in economics and one from the Massachusetts 

Institute of Technology (MIT) in business management. 

And, Vice Admiral, I just have to say that reading your opening 

statement, which you will be presenting here, your extensive experience, I cannot think of somebody more qualified at this point in 

time to lead such an important agency. So, with that, I look forward to your testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF DAVID P. PEKOSKE1 TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Admiral PEKOSKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning, 

Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member McCaskill, and distinguished 

Members of this Committee. It is a privilege to appear before you 

today as the President’s nominee to lead the Transportation Security Administration. I am honored to have been nominated by 

President Trump for this important national security position, and 

if confirmed, I look forward to the opportunity to work with Secretary Kelly, Deputy Secretary Duke, and the entire team at the 

Department of Homeland Security. 

I have always benefitted from the strong support of my family 

and am honored to introduce my wife, Michele, who is sitting right 

behind me, who joins me at this hearing today. Together, we raised 

four terrific children, all very successful in their own right. They 

and many members of our family are watching from locations 

around the country. I thank them for their love and support and 
6 

am glad they are able to be present today, in person and virtually, 

for this important event in my professional life. 

Let me begin by recognizing the men and women of the Transportation Security Administration. Each and every one contributes 

to the security of our Nation’s transportation system and works 

tirelessly to earn the trust and respect of the American people. 

Their work is critical to the security of our aviation and surface 

transportation systems, and they have, in my opinion, done an outstanding job in protecting us from an ever present and very dynamic threat. It would be my privilege to join them as their Administrator and bring my leadership, skills, and experience directly to 

the effort of securing our homeland. 

TSA could not accomplish its mission were it not for the strong 

partnerships it has with other Federal partners, State and local 

public safety and law enforcement agencies, the airline industry, 

the government services industry, airport and surface transportation system owners and operators, and international partners. 

Throughout my professional career, I have seen firsthand the importance and enormous value of strong partnerships and professional relationships. This is the extended TSA team, and it would 

be my privilege to join them as well in our collective goal of ensuring transportation security in the United States. 

I had the high honor of serving our country in the United States 

Coast Guard for most of my adult life. I am forever grateful to my 

Coast Guard colleagues for their investment in my leadership and 

professional development. My career in the Coast Guard provided 

me with the background and the experience that are very relevant 

to the position of TSA Administrator. Specifically, I performed in 

top leadership positions of a large operating agency with a security 

and law enforcement mission in the Department of Homeland Security. I have experience in operational risk management and risk 

mitigation, and I have experience working with other Federal, 

State, and local law enforcement and public safety agencies, industry and interest groups, and international partners and international standard-setting bodies. 

Following my Coast Guard service, I joined a very successful 

mid-market company in the government services industry. My experience in the private sector was very valuable, and I learned how 

government can be a better consumer of private sector expertise 

and support. 

Today, as you know, we face a multitude of threats that are persistent and ever evolving. We know that certain terrorist organizations remain focused on commercial aviation and disrupting the 

freedoms we enjoy as an open society. Staying ahead of these 

threats and ensuring that appropriate measures are in place to ensure security effectiveness will continue to be TSA’s most significant challenge. 

If confirmed, it would be my honor to serve in what I consider 

one of the most challenging jobs in government. My overarching 

goal would be to lead TSA to an ever stronger position as an effective and efficient provider of security for our transportation systems, especially aviation, with a strong and growing level of public 

confidence in the agency’s mission performance. I will articulate a 
7 

clear vision for TSA to ensure all of our efforts contribute to its 

achievement. 

My full intention is to serve as TSA Administrator, if confirmed, 

for as long as the President and Secretary wish me to remain in 

this position. I think leadership continuity at TSA is very important. If confirmed, I would be the 13th Administrator in 16 years 

when you include those in an acting capacity. 

I am always reminded of a quote of Alexander Hamilton when 

he, as our first Secretary of the Treasury, issued instructions to the 

Commanding Officers of the Revenue Cutters Service, which is the 

predecessor to the Coast Guard. Alexander Hamilton issued these 

instructions in 1791, approximately 226 years ago today. He said, 

in part, ‘‘They will always keep in mind that their countrymen are 

freemen, and, as such are impatient of everything that bears the 

least mark of a domineering spirit. They will, therefore, refrain, 

with the most guarded circumspection, from whatever has the semblance of haughtiness, rudeness, or insult.’’ I think this sage guidance from one our country’s Founding Fathers applies to all Federal officials involved in law enforcement and security operations 

today. It is something that will guide me if I am so fortunate as 

to have the opportunity to lead TSA. 

TSA is the face of the Federal Government to millions of air travelers every day. These travelers rightfully expect effective and efficient screening with a minimum of delay by government officials 

who treat them with respect. I will work diligently with the entire 

TSA workforce to ensure TSA continues to meet this standard. We 

must balance the demands of security with the imperatives of liberty guaranteed in our Constitution. 

In closing, I thank President Trump and Secretary Kelly for their 

confidence in my ability to lead TSA. Chairman Johnson, Ranking 

Member McCaskill, and distinguished Members of this Committee, 

I thank you for your courtesies during this confirmation process 

and for the opportunity to appear before you today. I look forward 

to answering your questions. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Vice Admiral. 

There are three questions the Committee asks every nominee for 

the record, and I will ask the questions, and each one of you can 

answer them separately. 

First, is there anything you are aware of in your background that 

might present a conflict of interest with the duties of the office to 

which you have been nominated? Mr. Glawe. 

Mr. GLAWE. No. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Vice Admiral. 

Admiral PEKOSKE. No, sir. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Do you know of anything, personal or otherwise, that would in any way prevent you from fully and honorably 

discharging the responsibilities of the office to which you have been 

nominated? Mr. Glawe. 

Mr. GLAWE. No. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Vice Admiral. 

Admiral PEKOSKE. No, sir. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Do you agree without reservation to comply 

with any request or summons to appear and testify before any duly 

constituted committee of Congress if you are confirmed? Mr. Glawe. 
8 

Mr. GLAWE. Yes. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Vice Admiral. 

Admiral PEKOSKE. Yes, sir, I do. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Again, I want to thank the Committee 

Members for showing up and attending, and out of respect for your 

time, what I will do is I will hold off on my questions and turn it 

over to Senator McCaskill. 

Senator MCCASKILL. I will do the same since so many of my colleagues are here, and I will be happy to defer to their questions 

and question at the end like you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Then it will be Senator Portman. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PORTMAN 

Senator PORTMAN. Great. Thank you. And I thank the Chairman 

and Ranking Member for their allowing us to go because we have 

crazy schedules, and I appreciate the way they conduct the business of this Committee. 

Thank you both for your willingness to serve. I appreciate the 

fact that you both have extensive experience on the intelligence 

side, and in your case, Admiral, you have had extensive experience 

on the security side. 

I was struck by one thing you said, and that is that there have 

been 13 people in your position of supervising the TSA operations 

in 16 years, and you said you hoped to be able to stick around for 

a while. 

Admiral PEKOSKE. Yes, sir. 

Senator PORTMAN. This is one of my concerns at DHS, honestly. 

We have the oversight responsibility for this gargantuan agency 

that I think was necessary; in other words, we needed to have a 

better response after 9/11 from the Federal Government level and 

bring together 23 departments and agencies. But we move people 

around a lot in that agency, and I am concerned about the impact 

that has on morale, on readiness in terms of your responsibilities. 

You are in a confirmation process here. I know you are not going 

to be able to say as much as maybe you can tell us once you are 

confirmed. But could you just for a second talk about that? Are you 

concerned about the amount of churning, the amount of changes in 

positions? I know sometimes within the Federal Government’s system it is advantageous for an individual to change positions in 

order to increase compensation. And what can we do to address 

that? So if you could just talk about that for a second, particularly 

as it relates to TSA? 

Admiral PEKOSKE. Yes, sir. When Secretary Kelly asked me if I 

would consider the TSA position, one of the things that was important to me is that whatever I agreed to do in the future, that I did 

it not just for a very short period of time. And I committed to him 

and committed today at this hearing that I will serve as long as 

I am able to serve in that position. I think leadership continuity 

in an agency like TSA is critically important. 

Senator McCaskill mentioned the morale issues with the workforce, and I think that is one of my key focuses, should I be confirmed, is to place a lot of attention onto that issue, see if we cannot raise job satisfaction across the employee workforce, and also 

reduce attrition. And both will improve security effectiveness and 
9 

security efficiency. So I am committed to do that, and I am committed to spending a lot of time with the workforce. 

Additionally, I think it is important that not just the top leader 

be in a position for a duration of time, but that the leaders that 

support that top leadership also have some level of continuity. And 

if confirmed, I will pay attention to that very carefully in the assignment of Senior Executive Service (SES) members inside TSA. 

Senator PORTMAN. Well, thank you. Again, I think a number of 

us on this Committee would probably like to follow up with you on 

that once you are confirmed because I think that is a critical management challenge at DHS. And, again, thanks for your service. 

Mr. Glawe, your background, again, is very impressive, starting 

as a police officer, working your way up to the top ranks of intelligence gathering. One of my big concerns about your Department, 

how it operates, is how the fusion centers are getting information. 

I think some fusion centers work pretty well, others not so well. 

And a constant concern I hear back home in Ohio is the fact that 

sometimes information is not disseminated in an appropriate way, 

either not quickly enough or not at the level of detail where it really is effective and helpful. And we do put a lot of focus and resources into fusion centers, not just at the Federal Government 

level, but State and local governments, and particularly law enforcement spend a lot of time and effort on that. 

Can you talk to us about that challenge and how you intend to 

deal with it? I know you have already been in an acting capacity 

and having to deal with fusion centers. But, one, are they working? 

And, two, how could we better disseminate that information? 

Mr. GLAWE. Senator, thank you for the question. And if confirmed, I look forward to working on the enterprise approach to fusion centers, and I would just start off with your question and answering it. I was fortunate enough to be on the Richmond Joint 

Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) with the FBI when Virginia started 

its first fusion center, so I was intimately aware of the relationship 

with the fusion centers with State and local law enforcement and 

some of the challenges that occurred then and then watching it 

progress over essentially the next 13 to 15 years or so. And the relationship with State and locals as coming from those organizations 

and working with them throughout my career is critical. I have 

met with all the Major Chiefs and Sheriffs Associations, the National Fusion Center Association, and I hear a reoccurring theme. 

They are absolutely necessary, but having a business enterprise approach to how they knit the intelligence on both disseminating intelligence to them and also receiving it from them is critical. 

The challenge is there are a lot of sheriffs and chiefs out there, 

and each fusion center operates independently. What I pledge is, 

if confirmed, to work with in an integrated approach to come up 

with an enterprise that has some consistency in how we are sharing intelligence, recognizing every fusion center is different. But 

from a Federal side and how we disseminate intelligence, it is 

going to be critical on how we have that enterprise approach. And 

I had a commitment from all the organizations to start working on 

that. So if confirmed, Senator, I look forward to working on that. 

Senator PORTMAN. So a business enterprise approach in your 

mind means consistency, reliability. What does it mean in terms of 
10 

the level of detail that you can provide? In other words, one of the 

complaints that I hear sometimes is that our fusion centers are not 

able to get the information that they really find actionable, and 

they are sometimes told after the fact. And, we have been blessed 

not to have more terrorist attacks, but certainly we have had some 

that could possibly have been thwarted had we had a better information flow from the Federal level or even the international level, 

Federal level, and right down to the State and local level. 

So talk to us about that for a minute. How can the business enterprise approach that you are advocating help with regard to getting that information in the right hands? 

Mr. GLAWE. Sure, Senator. Thank you for the question. The tactical level intelligence that is needed by the fusion centers, so as 

threats are fluid and dynamic and changing, to disseminate that 

intelligence and to have an enterprise starting at DHS I&A and 

getting it out to the fusion center so it is accurate, correct, but also 

timely is the critical node. And as we have seen with the other intelligence organizations, a merging of a hybrid, of integrating intelligence and operation and fusing that intelligence, vetting it so it 

is appropriate and correct, but getting it out quickly. So it has to 

be tactical so they can adjust resources, readjust personnel, readjust their posture in the communities, be it from terrorist networks, 

cyber intrusions, transnational criminal organizations, the opioid 

epidemic that is devastating the United States, we have to produce 

tactical level enterprise, timely intelligence down range. And that 

is going to be a change of our business model. The I&A employees 

are incredibly dedicated. They want to do this. It is going to be creating a process to do it accurately and timely. 

Senator PORTMAN. Well, again, once you are confirmed—and I 

think both of you will be—we look forward to working with you on 

that. I know this Committee has a strong interest in having fusion 

centers work, and I am not suggesting there is a cookie-cutter approach. It is different in different regions. But I do think more continuity with regard to the fusion centers per the Admiral’s comment about continuity would help, too, dissemination of information in a reliable way, consistent way, and ensuring that we can 

thwart these attacks on the homeland. 

Thank you for your service. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Tester. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TESTER 

Senator TESTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to thank 

you and the Ranking Member for your courtesy. I very much appreciate that. 

Mr. Pekoske, first of all, thanks for stopping in yesterday. We 

talked a little bit about partnerships with other law enforcement 

agencies that TSA utilizes. Could you briefly talk about how important those partnerships are? Briefly, please. 

Admiral PEKOSKE. Yes, sir. And thank you for your time yesterday. I greatly enjoyed the meeting. 

As I said yesterday, I think partnerships—and I said it in my 

opening statement as well. Partnerships are absolutely critical to 

the success of TSA’s security mission. There is no easier way to say 

it. They are absolutely critical. And I greatly appreciate the work 
11 

that State and local law enforcement agencies, public service agencies, have provided in partnering with TSA. And I hope that we 

have been a good partner. 

One of the things that, if I am confirmed and I get the opportunity to travel out to the workforce, which I will make as the 

highest priority for me in the first couple of months, and then 

throughout my tenure, is to meet with our State and local law enforcement partners and just reinforce the appreciation we have for 

the service they provide and the criticality it is to the overall success of our mission. 

Senator TESTER. OK. As the budget applies, the Law Enforcement Officer (LEO) Reimbursement Program, was zeroed out in the 

President’s budget. That money is used to basically help local law 

enforcement support your mission. Do you know if there are any 

other grants out there that could replace the LEO grants, or is that 

the only game in town when it comes to supporting local law enforcement? 

Admiral PEKOSKE. Senator, I do not know if that is the only 

game in town to support State and local law enforcement. But if 

confirmed, I will take a very close look at that and get back on your 

calendar to—— 

Senator TESTER. But you would agree that it is really critically 

important that those partnerships are there. And I can tell you 

that local government, even State government to a certain extent, 

really does not have the resources to be able to add value to your 

operation. 

Admiral PEKOSKE. Yes, sir, the partnerships are critically important. 

Senator TESTER. Since it was brought up during Senator 

Portman’s questioning, you said that you wanted to increase job 

satisfaction and reduce attrition. How much do you think that the 

pay for your front-line folks has to do with keeping them on the 

job? 

Admiral PEKOSKE. Sir, I think it is certainly a factor. To say otherwise would, I think, be silly. But I have not spent enough time 

with the TSA workforce. My only time really with the TSA workforce has been as a passenger going through a screening line. But 

I have read the survey results, and, I pledge, if confirmed, to spend 

a good amount of time early on to really understand what some of 

the issues are. For me, just from what I have read, some of the 

issues would pertain to leadership at all levels of the organization, 

reinforcement of the front-line individuals’ performance, recognizing good performance when good performance is performed, providing the workforce adequate training; and for those that see a career in TSA, providing them the counseling and the support to pursue that career, but make the expectations realistic. 

Senator TESTER. Well, I would just say leadership is critically important. It is critically important, and you know that coming from 

your previous job. But I would also hope that, as you look at the 

turnover of your front-line folks, that you take a look at where they 

are moving to and if pay is a potential problem. 

Admiral PEKOSKE. Yes, sir. 

Senator TESTER. I mean, if we are in a mode of continually retraining folks that are on the front lines, that is not healthy for the 
12 

organization. And I do not think it is healthy for security either, 

by the way. What is your perception on that? 

Admiral PEKOSKE. Sir, I agree, and one of the things that concerns me, in addition to the job satisfaction survey results, is the 

attrition rate, which is, in my view, very high for the workforce. 

And I have just a macro number as a nominee. What I would like 

to do, if confirmed, is to look at the attrition rates across each individual airport and really get a handle on that. 

Senator TESTER. I think it is good, and I think the reassignment 

of people, too, that Senator Portman brought up is also critically 

important. We are starting to see that in a lot of agencies, if they 

come out with a decision that maybe the higher-ups do not like, the 

White House in particular, they get reassigned. And I think that 

will do more to ruin employee morale than anything. You want 

people that are able to make decisions and support them in that 

decisionmaking. So thank you on that. 

Mr. Glawe, as far as cyber crime and cyber interference is concerned, which countries do you see as our biggest adversaries? 

Mr. GLAWE. Senator, thank you for the question. Clearly, the intelligence community assessment on the Russian cyber intrusion on 

the elections I agree with, and that raises significant vulnerability 

points in our critical infrastructure. In an unclassified setting, 

maybe I would take it for the record to have a list of—the classified 

response on the countries at risk. But what I would say in this setting is that did illuminate a vulnerability from active foreign intelligence organizations that are on the homeland. And Russia is not 

the only game in town, is what I would say, and ‘‘we’’—being 

the intelligence and law enforcement and private sector community—are going to have to be cognitive of those threats. And if confirmed, I look forward to working on that problem. 

Senator TESTER. And I appreciate that, and I do not think anybody is saying that Russia is the only game in town. But I do want 

to touch base—and this is not to put anybody in conflict with anybody. It is just we have to deal with these issues because they are 

real. But the President tweeted out on Sunday that he and Russian 

President Putin had discussed forming an impenetrable 

cybersecurity unit so that election hacking and many other negative things will be guarded and safe. 

I will give you my opinion. You want to talk about the epitome 

of the fox guarding the henhouse, this is it. 

What do you seek as the head of the DHS office when it relates 

to Russia and cybersecurity? Go ahead. 

Mr. GLAWE. Senator, if confirmed, I look forward to aggressively 

working with our intelligence, our law enforcement, and our private sector partners to glean the intelligence and our 

vulnerabilities on our critical infrastructure, especially in the cyber 

arena. The electoral system is one, but there are others that are 

vulnerable as well, especially with the private sector. My predecessor, Under Secretary Frank Taylor, had worked for General 

Electric (GE), and he has vocalized his concerns about the private 

sector. 

So I look at, if confirmed, to really focus on that and what our 

posture currently is and maybe where we have some business proc-
13 

ess and tactical response processes to improve where we are currently postured in the United States. 

Senator TESTER. Thank you. You do not have to answer this, but 

one of the questions that I also would like you to answer, through 

written or whatever, is what you are each going to do to break 

down silos between your partners, both within the Federal Government, State government, and local government, because I think it 

is really critical. You guys are not allowed to make a mistake. You 

just cannot. 

And so I appreciate you guys. I fully intend to vote for your confirmation. I think you are two quality candidates. Thank you very 

much. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Lankford. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANKFORD 

Senator LANKFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you 

both for allowing us to be able to move on to the questions as well. 

I want to pick up where Senator Tester left off here on the silo 

issue. You have been in law enforcement for a long time, Mr. 

Glawe. You know full well that there are clear lines between jurisdictions and responsibilities, and there are times when eight people 

all show up and they have eight different jobs, and you are all 

standing around waiting for your turn to be on your task. That is 

especially true when we deal with intelligence operations. Most of 

our intelligence operations are foreign-facing, trying to be able to 

figure out what is happening, what is coming at us. You have a 

very unique responsibility by trying to see what our threats are 

coming at us, at our closest areas. 

But there is also overlap. You mentioned in your written testimony that you intend to focus on analytical capabilities ‘‘on areas 

where we are positioned to add value or that are underserved by 

other parts of the intelligence community rather than duplicating 

work done elsewhere.’’ Help us understand that portion of that. 

Where do you think you can add value, first? And where do you 

think there might be duplication that we can help with? We want 

to help with both of those. 

Mr. GLAWE. Senator, thank you for the question, and thank you 

for meeting with me regarding the nomination. 

The DHS enterprise is very uniquely poised, I think, in the law 

enforcement and intelligence community space, in the marine, the 

trade, the travel, and the border security environment, and also 

with the private sector and sharing information with State and 

locals. No one else, I would argue, has that type of infrastructure 

to collect intelligence, to identify threats from that arena. So that 

is where I see our—and in conversations with numerous staff and 

Committee Members, that is a unique posture of DHS where we 

could enhance value. 

With the duplication of effort, I think there is some room for improvement in the terrorism arena. There are a lot of organizations 

that report on international terrorism and the effects on the homeland, including the FBI and the DHS relationship. If confirmed, I 

look forward to working with my law enforcement and intelligence 

community partners to streamline our business processes, to make 

sure there is not duplication; and where there is, maybe we will, 
14 

partner and move our resources in a little bit other areas where 

there is not as much coverage. So I look forward to looking at the 

enterprise approach to that, if confirmed. 

Senator LANKFORD. I would say we would be very eager to be 

able to help you with that as well. We have a lot of threats. We 

need to be able to focus our dollars on the areas where we need 

to be able to deal with those threats. If we are duplicating dollars, 

that means we are not looking at something else and we are missing out. So while I understand all the jurisdictional issues and that 

is their deal and we cannot talk about their deal, we do need some 

help and some ongoing conversation to be able to determine we do 

have some overlap here, and so we can deal with that overlap in 

the days ahead. 

You also focused in your testimony on transnational criminal organizations. Obviously, there are multiple entities that are dealing 

with that part of it as well—State Department, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), all kinds of different groups, FBI obviously. 

Where do you see your unique section dealing with transnational 

criminal organizations? 

Mr. GLAWE. Senator, thank you for that question. I am very passionate about transnational organized crime as well as the Secretary has spoken about it. The threats that are on the homeland 

from transnational criminal organizations by its nature starts in a 

foreign space. The overwhelming amount of narcotics flowing into 

the United States from Mexico and synthetic narcotics from China 

are devastating us. The deaths are compiling. 

I view the DHS enterprise as the last line of defense at the borders repelling these threats that are coming inbound, but also to 

push the borders 1,500 miles out, as Secretary Kelly has mentioned. How do we create an intelligence and law enforcement enterprise in partnership with foreign countries, with the embassies, 

and identifying those threats and empowering our foreign partners, 

empowering our law enforcement partners, empowering intelligence organizations to mitigate those threats? Because it is quite 

apparent that they are infiltrating with the narcotics coming into 

the United States. That is one vector of transnational criminal organizations. Others are cyber as well, the Dark Web. 

Again, Senator, if confirmed, it would be a great opportunity to 

work with the Committee on those threats, have a longer discussion on if we are postured correctly and maybe some potential readjustments that could help us wage our consolidated war on 

transnational organized crime together. 

Senator LANKFORD. I would welcome that conversation. Senator 

Harris and I both serve on the Intelligence Committee as well as 

serving here on Homeland Security, and so this is essential for us 

as we are working through this. So we will see each other often, 

but we also want to be able to make sure we have right-facing, 

right agencies, right entities on it. 

Vice Admiral Pekoske, you have a tough job. You have a lot of 

folks that are scattered all over the Nation. They deal with angry 

travelers every day. They deal with folks that are sick of standing 

in line, and your Hamilton quote I think is an excellent one to be 

able to put out there and say they are all free people and they 

want to be treated with respect. 
15 

I would tell you, as you are traveling, after confirmation—I fully 

expect to be able to affirm both of your confirmations in this. But 

post-confirmation, we would welcome you to Oklahoma. There is a 

great team of folks there that work for TSA that treat people with 

respect, that their head is up, that they are actually engaging with 

people in a friendly way, very respectful, and have done it exceptionally professional. So we would welcome you to be able to come 

to Oklahoma and be able to meet the folks there. 

I would love to say I see that in every airport. I do not. In the 

airports that I have the opportunity to be able to travel in, I will 

occasionally see folks that are in TSA, just the whole organization, 

head down, not interacting with people, everything is running slow, 

very different attitude. And so as you are dealing with that from 

place to place, you have some unique responsibilities. I am sure 

you have seen some of the red team testing as well, people that are 

working with TSA to be able to help evaluate where we have weaknesses. That is something that our Committee will track, we will 

continue to track and to be able to help with. Some of that boils 

down to not only training of people but acquisition. 

So my specific question for you is: How do we deal with the acquisition issues at TSA? Because we have at times done multi-billion-dollar acquisitions that 2 years later decided that was a bad 

idea, and you are coming back to the Committee to restart again. 

What can we do to be able to make sure the acquisition process 

works well while you are also working on the people and the morale issue? 

Admiral PEKOSKE. Yes, sir. Well, thank you for your comments 

on the TSA workforce and for your invitation to travel to Oklahoma. I would really appreciate doing that and will place that as 

a priority if confirmed. 

With respect to acquisition, that is one of my highest priorities, 

and I think it is also Deputy Secretary Duke’s highest priority, and 

hopefully soon-to-be Under Secretary for Management Claire Grady’s highest priority. The three of us have worked together before, 

and from my perspective, I would really like to see greater technology insertion in what we do in TSA and getting that technology 

insertion to the workforce faster. And I think that, too, for the 

workforce will help them do their jobs from a morale perspective, 

being able to use something that really is much more useful than 

perhaps what they are using today, and seeing the agency be responsive to what they, I am sure, have articulated as a need and 

putting it out in the field and getting it in place. 

TSA has an Innovation Task Force, which I have been briefed on. 

I have a lot of experience in innovation. I led the innovation effort 

for the Coast Guard when I was the Vice Commandant, and so that 

will be a key priority of mine to do just what you suggested. 

Senator LANKFORD. Yes, speed is exceptionally important. When 

we have determined what a threat is, we cannot wait 4 years before we actually distribute that out to the locations. 

Admiral PEKOSKE. Yes, sir. 

Senator LANKFORD. Thank you. 

Admiral PEKOSKE. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Harris. 
16 

1Mr. Glawe’s responses to post-hearing questions from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) appear in the Appendix on page 52. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARRIS 

Senator HARRIS. Thank you. 

Mr. Glawe, it is good to see you again. I am sorry I do not see 

your beautiful children here today. They were a star of the show 

in addition to you when you came before Senator Lankford and myself in our Intelligence Committee. 

I appreciate your responses to my questions for the record for 

you, and, Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate if we can submit those 

answers to the written QFRs in our record.1 But I appreciate you 

asserting, Mr. Glawe, that it ‘‘is never appropriate to produce intelligence with the specific intent of supporting a preconceived policy 

position.’’ I also appreciate your assurance when you wrote that 

you would resist any attempts by the White House or anyone else 

to politicize DHS’s intelligence analysis. 

On a different point, recently the Supreme Court partially lifted 

the stay on the implementation of the Muslim ban. However, the 

Court said that individuals with a bona fide connection to the 

United States could not be subject to the ban and must be allowed 

to enter the United States. In implementing this, DHS issued guidance defining which family relationships qualify as ‘‘close family’’ 

relationships and excluded grandparents, aunts, and uncles from 

that definition of ‘‘close family.’’ 

So my question for you is: Is there a rationale for excluding 

grandparents, aunts, and uncles from the definition of close family 

relationship? 

Mr. GLAWE. Senator, thank you for the kind words, and thank 

you for the questions. I am not aware of the rationale that went 

behind that, so I would have to take that back for the record on 

that. I am not aware of the criteria that was used for that policy 

decision. 

Senator HARRIS. Thank you. I appreciate you looking at it, and 

I would like you to also just consider that even in our country, the 

definition of what a family is has changed as we move around. 

Aunts and uncles in many cultures, including our own, and grandparents are really considered almost equal to parent. In many cultures, in fact, depending on birth order of siblings of your parent, 

you would refer to that aunt as your ‘‘older mother’’ or that uncle 

as ‘‘younger father.’’ So thank you. I appreciate that. 

Mr. Pekoske, in March 2014, TSA released a report in the aftermath of a shooting at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) 

where, as you probably know, one TSA officer was killed and three 

others were wounded. In fact, I went there right after, and it was 

a tragedy, as you can imagine, for all of us. The report was issued 

that recommended actions to enhance the presence of law enforcement and local law enforcement at checkpoints, including having 

TSA officers. And I appreciate Senator Tester bringing up the role 

of local law enforcement. 

So in regards to that March 2014 report, in contrast, the President’s current budget proposes eliminating the Law Enforcement 

Officer Reimbursement Grant Program, which helps local law en-
17 

forcement keep airports safe. What is your perspective on that recommendation as it relates to the budget? 

Admiral PEKOSKE. Senator, I was not involved in the build of the 

fiscal year (FY) 2018 budget. If confirmed, I will get into the details 

right away to understand the rationale for certain things that are 

in the budget as additions and some that are subtractions. 

I would reiterate that I think the partnership with State and 

local law enforcement is absolutely critical to TSA’s mission, and 

the incident in Los Angeles in March 2014 really illustrated the 

risks that TSA officers and State and local officers face nearly 

every day. So that will be a very high priority for me, and I will 

take a close look at that. 

Senator HARRIS. I appreciate that, and I would emphasize a 

point that I think you know, which is that tragedy highlighted also 

the courage that TSA officers display every day in the work that 

they do and their readiness to actually stand in the face of fire and 

protect civilians. 

Another recommendation made in that 2014 report following the 

LAX shooting was to ‘‘extend the redeployment of additional Visible 

Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) teams,’’ that had been 

temporarily redeployed in the aftermath of that tragic incident. 

However, again, in the budget there is a recommendation that the 

number of VIPR teams nationally be reduced from 31 to 8. Are you 

familiar with that recommendation? 

Admiral PEKOSKE. Yes, I am. 

Senator HARRIS. Can you tell me whether you support that? And 

if so, why? 

Admiral PEKOSKE. Senator, what I can tell you is that I have 

worked with VIPR teams in my past. I have found them to be very 

effective as a deterrent, and I am a strong supporter of the VIPR 

team effort. 

Senator HARRIS. So will you commit to this Committee that, if 

confirmed, you will work to actually improve that recommendation 

and not reduce that number from 31 to 8? 

Admiral PEKOSKE. Senator, what I will commit is that I will look 

carefully at the rationale for that number and the deployment of 

VIPR teams, and I will further commit that, I do not want the folks 

that operate on the VIPR teams to feel like they are underappreciated at all, because the work they perform is critical to our security, and I will reinforce that with them. 

Senator HARRIS. I appreciate that. 

And I would like to now talk about TSA wait times, which is, I 

think, something we all appreciate that folks—it is frustrating for 

folks who are trying to travel for a variety of reasons, for business, 

for family relationships. DHS recently announced new screening 

rules, which require additional screening for safety reasons. And 

there is no doubt that the security of all travelers is the highest 

priority, but we can also expect that these new rules will add to 

wait times or not? 

Admiral PEKOSKE. Senator, I would think that they might slightly add to wait times, but wait time is, from what I understand, 

something that is very carefully watched by TSA across the entire 

enterprise. And TSA, in my view, did a superb job last summer in 

responding to the wait time issues across the country by rede-
18 

ploying assets from one airport to the other based on expected passenger throughput. 

The other thing that I would mention to you is I think it is very 

important to encourage more travelers to go into the trusted traveler programs because that should reduce their wait times. That 

also increases, in my opinion, security effectiveness and very much 

so efficiency. So one of my priorities as well, if confirmed, would be 

to see what we can do to encourage more participation in trusted 

traveler programs like Global Entry, like TSA Pre-Check. 

Senator HARRIS. That would be great. I have in my State two of 

the largest airports in the country, as you probably know, San 

Francisco International Airport (SFO) and LAX, and it continues to 

be a concern for travelers through those airports. I hope Senator 

Lankford was not thinking of one of them when he was recalling 

frustrations he has had at airports around the country. But I appreciate that, and you earlier in your testimony made a commitment to innovation and clearly have some innovative ideas. Thank 

you. I have nothing else. 

Admiral PEKOSKE. Thank you, Senator. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Hassan. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HASSAN 

Senator HASSAN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking 

Member. And good morning to you both. Thank you for being here. 

I wanted to start with a question for you, Mr. Glawe. DHS was 

created in part to ensure that all homeland security-related functions of the government were housed under one roof, and in doing 

so, Congress and the Bush Administration endeavored to create the 

conditions by which homeland security-related information and intelligence was more effectively shared between each of the agencies. 

The DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis was empowered to 

help facilitate this intelligence sharing between DHS components. 

However, the Under Secretaries that have come before you have 

encountered resistance from DHS components in achieving full information and intelligence sharing within the broader DHS. 

As the former head of CBP’s Intelligence Office, you had a frontrow seat to this dynamic between components and the DHS Office 

of Intelligence and Analysis. So what steps will you take to ensure 

that DHS components are fully sharing intelligence with the DHS 

Office of Intelligence and Analysis? 

Mr. GLAWE. Senator, thank you for the question, and thank you 

for meeting with me prior to my testimony today. 

I am uniquely postured to answer that question because I did 

lead the largest component in DHS intelligence enterprise. And a 

couple things that my predecessor, if confirmed, Under Secretary 

Taylor developed a mission manager approach, an integration approach of bringing in the operational components, the intelligence 

apparatus, under a collaboration-type environment, a business enterprise. 

I anticipate to facilitate and move forward with that model even 

further. There is a tremendous opportunity within the components, 

intelligence functions, their data collection, their human source 

networks, their law enforcement collection on the aircraft they fly 
19 

or the marine environment they collect on, and partnership with 

the intelligence community partners of the Admiral’s prior organization, the Coast Guard. It is going to be a business model of integration. When I was with Customs and Border Protection, I did 

stand that up within a 60,000-plus organization under a field intelligence group (FIG) model, which was similar to what I learned 

under the FBI and the Director of National Intelligence Jim Clapper. It is going to be a similar type model, so I am not creating 

something new. I am tweaking what has already been out there 

that works for other organizations. But it is going to be a big machine and a heavy lift, and I look forward to partnering with the 

Committee, if confirmed, on helping do that as a partnership. 

Senator HASSAN. Well, thank you very much, and I enjoyed the 

meeting with you in my office as well. 

Vice Admiral, I wanted to touch with you a little bit on an issue 

that I know others have asked questions about already today, 

which was about the morale in both of the agencies that you are 

nominated to lead. But I wanted to follow up with you, Vice Admiral, because one of the questions that the TSA morale issue really 

begs is the way they are treated compared to other Federal employees, right? So would you consider making TSA employees fullfledged Federal employees who enjoy all of the same benefits as all 

other civil servants do? 

Admiral PEKOSKE. Senator, thank you for the question, and it is 

good to see you again. I would really like to get a feel myself for 

the issues that the workforce faces, and as I said in the opening 

statement and I said to you in our office meeting several weeks 

ago, I intend to spend, if confirmed, a great deal of my time out 

in the field understanding this issue, because I think it is critically 

important to be able to address. And then I am open to looking at 

any option that would address it. 

I think fundamentally the issue can be largely addressed through 

leadership at all levels of the organization, and Senator Lankford 

mentioned that some airports have different levels of performance 

than others. Well, that is something that we measure and we can 

look at and try to drill down and figure out, OK, why is that? Is 

it a facility issue that might be hindering the job satisfaction of the 

employees? Is it constraints on the facility technology? Or is it 

something else? And that is something that I really want to pay 

an awful lot of attention to and get to the root of because being at 

the very bottom of employee satisfaction is not where I want to be. 

And, really, from my Coast Guard experience, we are used to being 

at the other end. 

Senator HASSAN. Well, and I thank you for that answer. What 

I would ask you to talk to TSA employees about, as I have, is the 

fact that they are uniquely positioned as non-civil servants, and it 

results in high turnover. It results in a lot of other issues that I 

think are fundamental to some of the morale issues. So if you just 

would commit to talking with them about that and considering it, 

it would be very helpful. 

Admiral PEKOSKE. Yes, Senator, I would definitely talk with 

them about that. I want to understand that issue much better than 

I do today. 

Senator HASSAN. Thank you. 
20 

And one last question again for you, Mr. Glawe. As the office in 

charge of analyzing the threat to homeland from ISIS and alQaeda-inspired terrorism, the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis plays an important role in helping to understand the recruitment propaganda that is intended to leverage homegrown terrorist 

attacks within the United States. Given your experience as a local 

law enforcement officer, as an FBI counterterrorism agent, and as 

an intelligence official, what is the best way for the U.S. Government to go about preventing the recruitment of our young people 

by these groups? 

Mr. GLAWE. Senator, thank you for the question, and I have 

thought about that threat for years, in discussion with partnerships in the intelligence community and law enforcement. At the 

very tip of the answer would be an integrated approach with law 

enforcement, the private sector, the communities at the lowest common denominator—I was a community police officer when I first 

started in Houston almost 25 years ago—is integration with the 

community, conversations with the communities that are at risk, 

and developing those partnerships. 

It is not going to be solved by the intelligence community, it is 

not going to be solved by law enforcement, it is not going to be 

solved by the private sector, the communities alone. It is going to 

be a partnership. And what I have seen the successes at identifying 

violent acts or violent activity in communities is a communitybased approach. Now, we have a challenge with the online caliphate, and that is a whole different set of challenges as well. How do 

we create an infrastructure in protecting civil liberties but also 

identifying those risks as well? But it is a consolidated approach, 

and the communities to me, in partnership with local law enforcement and local leadership, is the key point. And we have seen success in the Somali communities in the United States back close to 

2010. So, if confirmed, I look forward to working on that very tough 

problem. 

Senator HASSAN. Well, I thank you for that. And I just wanted 

to follow up very quickly. A few weeks ago, this Committee heard 

testimony from the former Director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), Mike Leiter, who spoke about the need for 

the U.S. Government to embrace what I think you are describing 

an engagement strategy with communities across the country in 

order to prevent the possibility of homegrown terrorist attacks. 

I know I am out of time, but I would like you to think about 

maybe we could follow up what offices should be the tip of the 

spear for that particular effort. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Carper. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER 

Senator CARPER. Gentlemen, welcome very much. Thanks for 

your years of service, and your willingness to serve us some more. 

Mr. Glawe, it was nice to see you. Have you had the opportunity 

to talk with General Taylor and sort of looking back at some of the 

initiatives that he launched, successful to completion and others 

that are maybe not completed, not fully implemented? What are 

some things that he started on his watch that you think ought to 

be continued and improved upon? 
21 

Mr. GLAWE. Senator, thank you for the question. I have met with 

all the prior Under Secretaries—Charlie Allen, Caryn Wagner, and 

Frank Taylor. 

So Under Secretary Taylor, or General Taylor, had a couple of 

tremendous programs that I hope, if confirmed, to continue with. 

He had an integrated intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance 

program where he was looking at the enterprise of DHS, the U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Coast Guard assets, specifically on the air and marine environment and how we can align our 

resources so we are not duplicating efforts, we are flying sorties or 

our float times are appropriate, and then also looking at our data 

acquisition, how law enforcement data is acquired, how it is integrated among the DHS enterprise, and then also shared with our 

law enforcement, intelligence community, and private sector partners. General Taylor did an outstanding job of pushing that, and 

I hope to, if confirmed, continue on that. 

And then also the mission manager approach, where he had assigned functional mission managers to threat environments, the 

trade and travel space, also technology improvements as far as 

looking at the mission managers involving that. Again, General 

Taylor I think was absolutely heading in the right path, and I look 

forward, if confirmed, to continue down those paths of things he 

started. 

Senator CARPER. Good. Thank you. 

Admiral, nice to see you. I was delighted to get to know Admiral 

Neffenger during his time as Administrator at TSA. I was disappointed that he did not continue in this Administration in a leadership role, and my hope is that someday he will have the opportunity to serve in a senior role. 

I suspect that you know him pretty well—— 

Admiral PEKOSKE. Yes, sir. 

Senator CARPER [continuing]. And that your time in the Coast 

Guard sort of overlapped. You have probably known him for a long 

time. And I was very impressed with the leadership—you mentioned the word ‘‘leadership.’’ I was very impressed with the leadership that he provided at TSA. I always used to say that leadership 

is the most important ingredient in the success of any organization 

I have ever seen or been a part of, and that certainly includes TSA. 

I am one of those people, when I go through airport security, I 

thank the folks at TSA for the work that they do, and I would encourage others who might be watching this today to do the same 

thing. They have a very difficult job, and they need our thanks, especially when they do it well. 

I would like for you to answer much as I asked David to answer 

questions, looking at what Admiral Neffenger was doing, attempting to do as the TSA Administrator over the last year or two, that 

you think was especially promising, that are bearing fruit. We 

talked a fair amount here today already about morale. A lot has 

been done in that regard, and I do not know that you need to reinvent the wheel. But what are some things that you would want 

to carry on, some things you want to improve upon, and maybe 

some other things you would like to do? 

Admiral PEKOSKE. Yes, sir. Thank you. I know Peter Neffenger 

very well. We served for many years together in the Coast Guard. 
22 

We had many of the same positions in the Coast Guard, and I have 

great respect for his leadership and his management ability. He 

and I have talked extensively since I was nominated by the President to succeed him, if I am confirmed, and he shared with me his 

blueprint for TSA. I reviewed that, and I can assure you that I 

think he set exactly the right foundation for TSA and view my job 

as to really build on a lot of the things that he had done. 

He placed a lot of emphasis on the workforce, including establishing a TSA Academy so that as new employees came into the 

workforce, that they had a week or two period of time at Glynco, 

Georgia, where they could be assimilated into the organization and 

feel part of it. 

Senator CARPER. I have been there and seen the good work that 

is being done. Thank you. 

Admiral PEKOSKE. Yes, sir. I think that has been very successful. 

In addition to that, he instituted training for the workforce once 

they got back to their home airports. He started an Innovation 

Task Force, which I will absolutely continue, and I will expand that 

task force because I think that is off on the right track. 

He made some organizational changes to TSA which are very important to reduce spans of control and increase accountability, and 

also centralized the oversight of operations in the agency, which 

had not been done before. And that allowed TSA to move its resources around to be able to respond to predicted wait time surges 

at airports around the country. 

So all of those were very foundational and things that I look to 

continue going forward, and rest assured that Peter and I will have 

an ongoing dialogue over the course of time. We are very good 

friends, and I have great respect for him. 

Senator CARPER. A couple weeks ago, my wife and I flew in and 

out of O’Hare. We will be back out there later this summer. I recall 

a bit more than a year ago the place was bedlam. 

Admiral PEKOSKE. Yes. 

Senator CARPER. And one of the things that Admiral Neffenger 

did was to determine what caused that. Should they have seen this 

tidal wave of passengers coming? 

Admiral PEKOSKE. Right. 

Senator CARPER. And the answer was yes, and what to do about 

it. He changed out the leadership. And he did not just change it 

out over a period of a couple months. He like changed it right 

away. And I was very impressed at the time about how important 

leadership is, and he provided great leadership and also made sure 

that the folks at O’Hare—he put in the right leadership team 

there, and he did it just like pretty much like that. 

I want to ask you to talk to us a little bit about the partnership 

between the Federal Government and the airlines with respect to 

the work that TSA does, and it is very much a hand-in-glove operation. Particularly, talk about technology and how we are maybe 

changing the experience that we have when we go through security 

check-ins at airports using technology to be able to get more 

throughput in a more secure way. 

Admiral PEKOSKE. Yes, sir. A partnership with the airlines is absolutely critical, and if confirmed and I get out into the field, as I 

intend to do, I will make it a priority to visit the airline head-
23 

quarters around the country and will choose those airports initially 

so I get that opportunity. I think those partnerships are critical to 

their success and to TSA’s success and to the passenger experience 

and passenger safety and security. 

The airlines have helped a lot with technology insertion in airports around the country. There are screening lines now where you 

can put down your checked bag and you do not have to wait for 

the person queued up in front of you. Several people can put it 

down at the same time. That fixes a known process problem in the 

security checkpoints. 

Additionally, the airlines have been very supportive of putting 

better technology into checked baggage so that the Transportation 

Security Officer (TSO) who is trying to look at that screen and 

make sense of everything that we put into our checked baggage can 

do it with a little bit more confidence and a little bit quicker. 

And so those are things that I would very much look forward to 

continuing, and many of those were things that Peter had started 

with his relationship with the airlines. So I look forward to a very 

robust relationship with them and a very strong partnership. 

Senator CARPER. Good for you. Thanks very much to both of you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Paul. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PAUL 

Senator PAUL. Congratulations to both of you for your nominations. 

Admiral Pekoske, with regard to security in general and sort of 

the philosophy of security at our airports, for about a decade after 

9/11, the Bush Administration opposed the frequent traveler program, and they said, oh, everybody is going to be treated the same 

no matter what, it is universal risk. And I always thought that was 

a mistake because I think you need to spend more time where 

there is more risk and less time where there is less risk. You cannot possibly, give the same level of scrutiny to all the passengers. 

So I think we are doing better, and I like your approach that you 

are talking about, being in favor of the frequent flyer program as 

a way to spend more time on those who you know less about and 

perhaps have more risk. 

As you and I discussed, I think there is also a question of how 

much resources we spend on the random screening at the airport 

and how much we spend on looking at the risk of people before 

they get to the airport. And what is your opinion on whether we 

are spending enough before they get to the airport versus when 

they get to the airport, and the mix of that, and whether we need 

to make any changes? 

Admiral PEKOSKE. Senator, thanks for the question, and thanks 

for your time yesterday. I think that mix, from what I understand, 

is the passenger—now, I have not been briefed by TSA in detail on 

the classified portions of those reviews, but that is something I 

would pay a lot of attention to very early on, if confirmed. 

As we discussed and as I said earlier today, putting more people 

into the trusted traveler programs is really important. I think it 

improves the passenger experience, and it makes the screening a 

lot more effective. And like you just said, sir, it allows the resources that we have that are limited—and airline travel is in-
24 

creasing at about 4 percent per year, so we need to be mindful of 

that. So to the extent that we can become more efficient but not 

suffer any loss of effectiveness in security as well. 

Senator PAUL. Are you aware of the program that we have for 

veterans that are amputees, what are screening procedures for 

them? 

Admiral PEKOSKE. Not in detail, sir. 

Senator PAUL. OK. I am a little bit aware of it, and I think they 

will make special accommodations for them. But I think it may require calling in advance, which is not always happening. Unfortunately, we have a lot of veterans that are amputees. 

One of the things I would like you to look at, if you would, is to 

specifically look at this program, and I would think there would be 

a pretty simple way that, it is pretty obvious if you are an amputee, and that if you could present a military ID, you do not have 

to take your prosthesis off. I have a friend who is a triple amputee, 

and just having him take all of his prostheses off, it is a labor for 

him and makes him less likely to want to fly, basically. 

Admiral PEKOSKE. Sir, I agree, and I just think it is not right, 

so I will take a look at it. 

Senator PAUL. Mr. Glawe, one of the things that has really bothered a lot of us who care about privacy is the fact that now citizens 

are being detained at the border and denied entry back into their 

country unless they present a password to their phone. I understand the need for information, but I also am a believer that you 

accuse somebody of something, you get a warrant from a judge, and 

there is a process. Do you think our current policy is consistent 

with what citizens should expect of the Due Process Clause of the 

Constitution, demanding their password, denying them entry to 

their country? 

Mr. GLAWE. Senator, thank you for the question, and the policy 

decision on the border search has not fallen under any of my positions in my prior capacity. 

With that being said, in my 24 or 25 years in law enforcement, 

the Constitution is the bedrock of everything I have done in my career, the First Amendment and Fourth Amendment specifically, 

and people being secure in their privacy is the utmost. And I will 

continue that in my career here if confirmed as the intelligence 

head for DHS and would adhere to any policies and procedures or 

precedent-setting cases in regard to that matter. 

Senator PAUL. Just be aware that there is at least a significant 

portion of our country that is concerned about it. We have a bipartisan bill to say you get a warrant. I am not against you going after 

threats. I am not against you asking to look at a phone. But you 

have to ask a judge first. And I think the thing is that people are 

alarmed at the fact—people are already talking about you cannot 

take your phone abroad because you may not be allowed back in 

your country without searching your phone. And your phone, what 

is on your phone—and there are more extensive documents on your 

phone than anyone ever had in the papers in their house at the 

time of the Revolution. So, I mean, I think we cannot willy nilly 

just say you cannot come back in your country, without looking at 

everything on your phone. 
25 

They are also not telling you what they do with the phone, 

whether they are downloading all your contacts, all of your search 

history, all of your Internet browsing. So some of us are very concerned with this. I brought it up with General Kelly. I do not think 

he shares significant concern for that and said the policy will continue. But I can just let you know that there is a significant 

amount of the public that is not happy about the idea that you 

could come back, and I think there is the danger that you come 

back in, if you are not lily white and look like some sort of standard version of what you think is American, that you are going to 

have your phone searched. And that is kind of what it is looking 

like now. But if you have a risk associated with it and you want 

to ask a judge, by all means. But I do not think we should be stopping people from coming back into the country and demanding to 

look at everything on their phone. 

Thanks. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Paul. Senator 

McCaskill. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you. 

I want to thank you, Mr. Pekoske, because you indicated in your 

policy questionnaire that you would respond to any reasonable requests from Members of Congress, regardless of party. 

Mr. Glawe, you did not receive the Committee questionnaire, so 

you have not had an opportunity to answer that question. Would 

you also agree to commit to respond to any reasonable requests 

from any Member of Congress, whether in the majority or the minority? 

Mr. GLAWE. Absolutely, Senator. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you. I want to talk a little bit about 

whistleblowers and retaliation, Mr. Pekoske, and I think that is 

part of the problem that you are going to have to confront. And let 

me go at it this way. There was information sent to employees in 

the TSA’s Office of Security Capabilities. They were told recently 

that any and all documents related to an Office of Inspector General (OIG) or the Government Accountability Office (GAO) request 

must be cleared by TSA leadership before they can be sent to investigators. 

Now, I want to give credit to the Acting Administrator because 

the Acting Administrator, once he realized this had gone out, immediately corrected that and sent out guidance that concurred with 

the Inspector General’s (IG’s) recommendation that, they should 

not, in fact, do that, and it was an all-hands email to employees. 

So someone at TSA thought it was appropriate to tell employees 

that any information given to the IG or GAO had to be cleared. 

Then once the acting person realized this, they corrected it. But I 

want to get to that person who issued that guidance in the first 

place. And the reason that I want to challenge you to find out who 

that was and to take action is because of the issue I have discovered on whistleblower retaliation. 

Last year, I asked the former Administrator how many senior executives at TSA had been found guilty of retaliation against whistleblowers by Inspectors General, the Office of Special Counsel 

(OSC), or Federal court. He responded, and I quote, ‘‘In the past 

5 years, neither OSC or any Federal court has made a finding of 
26 

whistleblower retaliation with respect to any seniors executives at 

TSA.’’ 

Well, I was really surprised by that answer because I knew that 

OSC had obtained corrective action for 7 TSA employees who 

claimed retaliation in 2015 alone, and that there had been 20 TSA 

whistleblower claims in the last 5 years. So it did not match up, 

what I was being told by the Administrator and what we knew to 

be the reality in terms of whistleblower retaliation. 

And what we believe happened is that these cases got settled, 

and the managers who retaliated against their subordinates received no discipline. There was no action taken against them. 

There was no record that they had been disciplined for whistleblower retaliation, even though these cases had been settled under 

that rubric. 

So I think that is part of the problem here, because what I think 

everybody that works there knows, they can retaliate against you 

for whistleblowing and nothing is going to happen to them. 

So I would like you to commit today to looking at this issue, and 

I think the fact that somebody at TSA sent out that email that you 

cannot give anything to the IG or GAO without telling the boss is 

Exhibit A that that culture is one of the reasons that the people 

who work there have no confidence in the leadership. 

Admiral PEKOSKE. Yes, Senator, thank you, and I will make that 

commitment to you. The whistleblower issue is one that concerns 

me greatly. In TSA, it seems to me—and I have not been briefed 

on this in detail by the agency as the nominee, but it just seems 

to me that the whistleblower complaints are out of range, and it 

requires a senior-level look at the entire issue. 

Retaliating against whistleblowers is against the law. It just cannot be done. And anybody that does that need needs to be held accountable for doing so. That creates an absolutely toxic environment in the workforce, and that is one of the things that I really 

think is a key role of the Administrator coming in, is to try to fix 

that and try to get at it. So I will definitely do as you suggest. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Yes, especially when no one is publicly disciplined, because that sends a really—I know based on your background, if our military or the Coast Guard operated that way, you 

talk about morale issues. There is a sense that if you screw up, 

something is going to happen. And it does not appear to me that 

at TSA that has been the case, and I really hope that you 

will—and we will follow up with you after you are confirmed to 

work on this specific issue because I think it is really important. 

Admiral PEKOSKE. OK, Senator. And what I will further commit 

to you is one of the first meetings I have will be with OSC and with 

the IG to understand from their perspective what the issues are. 

And I want to have a very good relationship with them. They perform a very valuable function for the agency, and, I appreciate a 

third-party look at things that have been going on. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Well, the people who respond—as a former 

auditor, I would tell you the people who respond to an audit, a 

look-see, with ‘‘Thank you, this is good, we can do better,’’ end up 

in a much better place than those who circle the wagons and tell 

their employees not to tell anybody anything that is negative. It 

just does not work out. 
27 

I was going to ask you about the VIPR programs. You have already addressed that. I do want to briefly, Mr. Glawe, ask 

you—you did mention the Russian interference. Based on what you 

know, do you have confidence that the Russians are going to continue to try to interfere in our elections next year and in 2020? 

Mr. GLAWE. Senator, thank you for the question, and the Russian 

intelligence services are an aggressive intelligence service, and not 

going into a classified response, I would anticipate, being an intelligence official for years looking at the State-sponsored or foreign 

intelligence services, that they are going to be an active and an aggressive intelligence service for some time. And we need to be postured as an intelligence enterprise to address not just Russia but 

other—as Senator Tester brought up and I answered a question, 

his question, there are many foreign intelligence organizations that 

are a risk to the United States, and we need to be postured to address all of those and identify them before they become a substantial issue. 

Senator MCCASKILL. I guess based on your experience in the intelligence community, would you be comfortable partnering with 

Russia and giving them access to any of our intelligence capabilities in any kind of task force? Would you consider them a viable 

partner in terms of letting them into our systems to somehow work 

together in a task force against cybersecurity? Would you consider 

that a valuable idea? 

Mr. GLAWE. Senator, thank you for the question. My understanding is that was recently discussed at a senior executive level. 

What I would say about partnerships with intelligence organizations, foreign intelligence organizations, would have to have significant oversight and checks and balances to whatever agreements 

and partnerships we would have. Maybe we have common goals as 

to terrorist organizations, things of that nature, but it would have 

to be a strict and regimented type of infrastructure built around 

any partnership with an intelligence organization. 

Senator MCCASKILL. It was a real head-scratcher for me. We just 

voted 98–2 to put more sanctions on Russia, and then somehow it 

might be a good idea for us to partner up? It was very confusing 

to me. 

And, finally, let me just say this, and thank you, Mr. Chairman, 

for your indulgence. I want to tell you, Mr. Pekoske, that as somebody who travels a lot—I call Southwest my ‘‘school bus’’ coming 

back and forth to Washington every week—I am in airports a lot, 

and I have to tell you that I have seen a dramatic improvement 

in the TSA personnel and their professionalism and the processes. 

And I think they have a really difficult job, and it is always going 

to be easy to call out a bad situation, and there are bad situations 

that are going to happen every day. We have a lot of people flying, 

and people get frustrated and angry, and nobody likes to wait in 

a line. And I just think overall if I compare and contrast what I 

was going through 6 or 7 years ago versus now, there have been 

dramatic improvements. And I do not think we pause often enough 

to thank the men and women of TSA for the very difficult job they 

are doing under very difficult circumstances, and I just wanted to 

end my time at your confirmation hearing that you could carry that 
28 

with you, that there are people who really appreciate the good 

work they are doing. 

I do think the Pre-Check lines are getting too long because more 

and more people are pre-checked now, and I now have to—like at 

Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA), I have to 

check because usually it is a lot quicker to go in the regular line 

than the Pre-Check line. So I think that is something you are going 

to have to deal with. But all in all, I think there are very few bad 

experiences and a whole lot of professionalism going on right now. 

Admiral PEKOSKE. Senator, thank you very much for that comment. I will definitely pass it along. It mirrors my experience as 

well. And I think one of the very important things with respect to 

the workforce, like you said, there are good things that happen 

every day. We do not hear about them, and we need to. And the 

leadership at those airports needs to highlight the good performance of people when they perform exceptionally well. So thank you 

very much for the comments. 

Senator MCCASKILL. You bet. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator McCaskill. 

Let me just pick up on that a little bit. My own background is 

in manufacturing, continuous operation, millions of pounds of plastic going by operators 24/7. It can be really monotonous, and yet 

it was packaging material for medical devices. We could not have 

any defects in that. And you have a very similar process now 

with TSA. It can be pretty monotonous, and I think a big difference—and this is where I do appreciate the continuous improvement of Admiral Neffenger. I am also very impressed with the reaction last summer, that kind of flexible deployment. 

Within the military—and I never served in the military—the esprit de corps, the understanding of the finest among us of how critical their mission is, even though they may be deployed in some 

pretty monotonous tasks as well, they understand what they are 

doing. I think that is something Admiral Neffenger and yourself 

can continue to bring to this organization, that esprit de corps, that 

culture, describing to the members of the TSA, no matter what 

their position, they can save lives. The mission is just so critical. 

And so I have not been down to the TSA Academy. I would love 

to accompany you down there. I think that is a good starting point. 

But we have just got to be looking at that continuous improvement 

to instill in every member of the TSA, if we could shift them more 

and more to an overall culture that we already have instilled in the 

finest among us, in the military, I think that would be a really 

good step in the right direction. 

You talked about innovation. I would just like you to talk a little 

bit about how do you actually implement innovation. I will make 

a suggestion from the standpoint of pilot programs. There are differences between airports. Part of it might just be differences in 

the labor pool. Obviously, leadership makes a big difference. But I 

think metrics, measuring, incentivizing, empowering management, 

and then highlighting the best practices, can you just kind of speak 

to those concepts? 

Admiral PEKOSKE. Yes, sir. First, thanks for your comments on 

the workforce. I greatly appreciate them. And I think it is very 

similar to the Natonal Aeronautics and Space Administration 
29 

(NASA) example. Every person that worked at NASA put a man 

on the moon. Every TSA employee contributes to the safety and security of the American public. And we are not talking small numbers here. We are talking almost 800 million people per year travel 

by air, and that is not even mentioning the surface transportation 

security work that TSA does in partnership with the owners and 

operators of those systems. 

With respect to innovation, I look at innovation in sort of two 

ways. The first way is technological innovation and being able to 

insert technology rapidly, and so I 100 percent agree with you that 

prototyping is very important to be able to do that. The key, 

though, is to make sure that when you have a successful prototype, 

you actually get it implemented. 

One of the things that I have seen with innovation programs is 

they start out very strong, but if the workforce does not see what 

they contribute to actually finding its way into the field, then the 

innovation program tends to wane a little bit. And so cycle time 

and being able to take a little bit of risk with respect to acquisition 

process I think is very important to be able to get that in place. 

Chairman JOHNSON. But, again, that is technological innovation. 

I am really talking about workforce innovation. 

Admiral PEKOSKE. Yes. 

Chairman JOHNSON. I am talking about how you schedule the 

shifts, how you relieve people; how long are they are on the 

screens. How do you move people around? How are you flexible 

with your workforce? So I think from my standpoint that is even 

more critical. 

Admiral PEKOSKE. Yes, sir. And that would be the second 

tranche, is process innovation. When you are an individual who 

works a process day in and day out, 5 to 7 days a week, you know 

where it can be improved. And I think what TSA needs to do and 

what I will do if confirmed is to put a process in place where the 

workforce can put those recommendations up online. In the Coast 

Guard, we had a virtual innovation forum where, if you had a good 

idea—and these mostly came from our more junior members, who, 

like I said, were doing the job day in and day out—you post it on 

website. You put your name to it. And then others could make comments on it. And so we really crowdsourced those ideas. And then 

we took the best of them, the ones that got a lot of very positive 

votes, if you will, and implemented them and did that rapidly. 

Again, I think the cycle time is very important, from the time 

that somebody comes up with a good idea and sees it implemented. 

It cannot be 2 or 3 years. It has to be relatively quick. But I agree 

with you 100 percent, sir. 

Chairman JOHNSON. As Senator McCaskill was pointing out, 

though, too, you compare the military—it may not be zero tolerance, but people are held accountable in the military. 

Admiral PEKOSKE. Right. 

Chairman JOHNSON. And I think that is so important. I think it 

is one of the reasons you have the result in the military as—in the 

civilian Federal workforce, there is not that level of accountability. 

It is shocking, the level of retaliation, even though there have been 

laws on the books for 100 years. And we have the Office of Special 
30 

Counsel, we have the Inspector General. And yet retaliation occurs 

unbelievably often. 

Admiral PEKOSKE. Right. 

Chairman JOHNSON. So I think that has to be a top priority. I 

agree with Senator McCaskill. We have to root it out. There can 

be no tolerance for it whatsoever. That alone will dramatically improve the morale because in an organization, if you allow bad apples to just continue to infect the organization, that is exactly what 

ends up happening. 

Admiral PEKOSKE. Right. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Mr. Glawe, we had a hearing about a month 

or two ago on transnational criminal organizations. We focused on 

MS–13. With your background in local law enforcement, the priorities on the homeland security side of this Committee have been 

border security, cybersecurity, protecting critical infrastructure, 

and combating Islamic terrorists and any other extreme violent 

actor. It has become so apparent that I would say the primary root 

cause of our unsecured border is our insatiable demand for drugs 

and what that has led to, the creation of the drug cartels, these 

transnational criminal organizations. 

As I traveled around Wisconsin on a national security tour talking to local, State, and Federal law enforcement, I asked them, 

‘‘What is the biggest problem you are dealing with?’’ Without exception, it was drugs—the crime it creates, the broken families. 

Speak a little bit about that as your priority in terms of getting 

the intelligence and analyzing that so we can attack it effectively. 

Mr. GLAWE. Chairman Johnson, thank you for the question, and 

thank you for meeting with me, too. I am extremely passionate 

about it. I would argue that I am sure our friends and family, everyone has been impacted by narcotics or substance abuse, addiction. It is eroding our communities, and the threats are emanating 

in foreign space. So we have an issue with our demand here that 

also has to have some tough policy decisions on how that is going 

to be addressed. 

But empowering our State and local partners and using the fusion centers to identify these threat vectors of how the cartels are 

moving their supply chain narcotics into our communities, how 

they are using the Dark Web, how they are using encrypted communication, they have become sophisticated. They are Fortune 500 

billion-dollar corporations with worldwide nexus to move money, 

people, and resources. To posture the intelligence community, the 

private sector, Department of Defense (DOD), and law enforcement 

in a community approach to this is going to be critical, and I look 

forward, if confirmed, to working with the Committee. If there are 

stovepipes or policy or legal impediments, we are going to have to 

drive through them because this has become just an epidemic problem in the United States. Thank you for raising it, and I look forward to further dialogue and conversations with the Committee on 

how to address this. But it is going to be a partnership. At the lowest common denominator, getting them the intelligence of the 

threat environment that is mitigating and changing and adaptable 

all the time because the cartels are brilliant, sophisticated adversaries, and it is going to take a brilliant, sophisticated network to 

defeat that adversary. 
31 

1The Information of Mr. Pekoske appears in the Appendix on page 68. 

Chairman JOHNSON. When I first joined this Committee, one of 

the first phrases I heard is, ‘‘When you have seen one fusion center, you have seen one fusion center.’’ So it does depend on personnel. It depends on leadership. But in talking about what your 

mission is, what are you going to focus on, how can you bring a 

differentiated product to the table, I cannot think of a better niche 

for you to operate in as really these transnational criminal organizations, the drug organizations, the gangs—just a scourge on our 

society. 

The last one for you, Vice Admiral. I am a huge supporter of 

K–9 units, and I think you will find a great deal of bipartisan support in Congress for increasing the number of units we have. Now, 

they do not come cheap, but as we have held hearings on this, 

there is no technology that can beat the nose of a dog. And with 

the new emerging threats in terms of explosive and smaller devices, I think it is just critical. 

So I guess, I definitely want to work with you to do everything 

we can to find the resources, and I am just looking for a commitment to K–9 units. 

Admiral PEKOSKE. Sir, I am also a huge fan of K–9 units. I have 

experience working with them in my Coast Guard background. I 

think they are superb at detecting and also superb at deterring behavior. And so you have my commitment to take a very close look 

at that. I think that is one of the ways that we can really improve 

the effectiveness of security. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Well, I will tell you, one of the things I like 

about this Committee is, first of all, the Members attend; they ask 

excellent questions. I kind of like this technique. We let our colleagues ask the questions. I have kind of run out of them. 

Let me just say that—I mentioned the priorities of our Committee. The fifth that I did not mention was the fact that we are 

committed to making sure the Secretary, his Under Secretaries, 

and everybody in this function of trying to keep our homeland safe 

and secure, that you succeed in your mission. So we are dedicated 

to doing that. 

Let me just say, help us help you. You have to communicate with 

us. We want to do everything we can to support your mission because it is just so critical. 

Again, I want to thank you for your past service and your willingness to serve again. I thank your family members. You are 

going to see them less because these are such important jobs, and 

we are just so appreciative that you are willing to serve your Nation once again in these important capacities. 

Vice Admiral Pekoske has made financial disclosures and provided responses to biographical and prehearing questions submitted by the Committee.1 Without objection, this information will 

be made part of the hearing record, with the exception of the financial data, which are on file and available for public inspection in 

the Committee offices. 
32 

2The questions of Senator Harris appears in the Appendix on page 52. 

I also want to make sure, without objection, that Senator Harris’ 

questions can also be entered in the record2. Hearing no objection, 

so ordered. 

The hearing record will remain open until noon tomorrow, July 

12th, for the submission of statements and questions for the record. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
(33) 

A P P E N D I X 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 

Æ