U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

32–574 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

EXAMINING MISCONDUCT AND RETALIATION 

AT TSA 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 26, 2018 

Serial No. 115–104 

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

( 

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

http://oversight.house.gov 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

Trey Gowdy, South Carolina, Chairman 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Darrell E. Issa, California 

Jim Jordan, Ohio 

Mark Sanford, South Carolina 

Justin Amash, Michigan 

Paul A. Gosar, Arizona 

Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Thomas Massie, Kentucky 

Mark Meadows, North Carolina 

Ron DeSantis, Florida 

Dennis A. Ross, Florida 

Mark Walker, North Carolina 

Rod Blum, Iowa 

Jody B. Hice, Georgia 

Steve Russell, Oklahoma 

Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin 

Will Hurd, Texas 

Gary J. Palmer, Alabama 

James Comer, Kentucky 

Paul Mitchell, Michigan 

Greg Gianforte, Montana 

Michael Cloud, Texas 

Elijah E. Cummings, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

Carolyn B. Maloney, New York 

Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Columbia 

Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri 

Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts 

Jim Cooper, Tennessee 

Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia 

Robin L. Kelly, Illinois 

Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan 

Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey 

Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois 

Jamie Raskin, Maryland 

Jimmy Gomez, Maryland 

Peter Welch, Vermont 

Matt Cartwright, Pennsylvania 

Mark DeSaulnier, California 

Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

SHERIA CLARKE, Staff Director 

WILLIAM MCKENNA, General Counsel 

JESSICA DONLON, Deputy Subcommittee Staff Director 

KILEY BIDELMAN, Clerk 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on September 26, 2018 ..................................................................... 1 

WITNESSES 

The Honorable David Pekoske, Administrator, Transportation Security Administration 

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

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 9 

APPENDIX 

Staff report submitted by Ranking Member Cummings ...................................... 44 

Letter for the record from the American Federation of Government Employees, submitted by Mr. Lynch ............................................................................... 54 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(1) 

EXAMINING MISCONDUCT AND RETALIATION 

AT TSA 

Wednesday, September 26, 2018 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

Washington, D.C. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 1:04 p.m., in Room 2154, 

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Trey Gowdy [chairman of the 

committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Amash, Massie, Walker, Blum, Hice, 

Grothman, Hurd, Palmer, Comer, Mitchell, Cloud, Cummings, 

Maloney, Lynch, Connolly, Lawrence, Watson Coleman, 

Krishnamoorthi, DeSaulnier, and Plaskett. 

Chairman GOWDY. The Committee on Oversight and Government 

Reform will come to order. Without objection, the presiding member is authorized to declare a recess at any time. 

We welcome you, Admiral. We have votes that are pending, so 

Mr. Cummings and I are going to try to get our opening statements 

in, and then we will recognize you for yours, time allowing, and 

then we will come back after votes. But welcome 

The Transportation and Security Administration is charged with 

an important mission, which is safeguarding America’s aviation 

system. TSA screens over 2 million passengers daily at over 430 

airports. There is no margin for error, so consequently their mission requires constant vigilance in an ever-evolving threat environment. 

To meet this demanding responsibility, TSA must run efficiently 

and effectively. It must directly address security threats. It must 

encourage open dialogue. It must foster a culture of leadership. 

And while Congress recognizes TSA is under relatively new leadership, and while we also acknowledge and recognize that doing 

your job effectively is not always, in the current environment, noteworthy, those two facts, notwithstanding, TSA, in some instances, 

has fallen short of the important mission that they have been afforded. 

In 2015, the committee received allegations of senior-level misconduct and whistleblower retaliation, and consequently launched 

an investigation. During the course of the investigation the committee conducted 11 transcribed interviews, and met and spoke 

with dozens of whistleblowers, and reviewed thousands of pages of 

documents. 

The committee held five public hearings, including today’s. Yesterday, the committee released its investigative report, and the result of it’s findings. As detailed in the report, the committee’s inVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:08 Nov 02, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\32574.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
2 

vestigation discovered senior TSA officials engaged in patterns of 

misconduct, resulting in very minimal consequences. 

In December of 2014, TSA’s Office of Inspection launched an investigation into Assistant Administrator Joseph Salvator. The complaint alleged Mr. Salvator committed misconduct by having an inappropriate relationship with a subordinate, misusing his official 

position during the hiring process, and lacking candor with investigators. 

Through its investigation, the Office of Inspection determined 

Salvator committed several acts of misconduct, and recommended 

that he be fired. Despite the recommendation, TSA leadership 

chose not to terminate Salvator. In the same hour Salvator received OPR’s notice of proposed removal, the Chief Counsel’s Office 

offered a settlement agreement, recommending, instead of dismissal, a 14-day suspension, and a demotion, with no loss in pay. 

Not surprisingly, Salvator accepted 

The department’s Office of Inspector General discovered the 

same pattern, in their report the OIG concluded TSA senior leaders 

deviated from standard policy and practice in a number of key respects, indicating that the assistant administrator received unusually favorable treatment in the resolution of his disciplinary matter. 

The committee also found senior TSA officials used involuntary 

directed reassignments as a means of retaliating against disfavored 

employees, including whistleblowers. Initially, directed reassignments, which relocate employees from airport to airport, were intended to improve the workforce, and, thereby, security at airports. 

Senior officials at TSA headquarters, however, soon used them as 

a tool of reprisal to force whistleblowers or disfavored employees to 

relocate airports, often hundreds of miles away, and in some instances, several states away. 

In May of 2018, the Office of Special Counsel settled a set of these retaliation cases with TSA for $1 million. In this case, three 

TSA employees, who received operational—who raised operational 

issues at the Honolulu Airport were relocated from Hawaii, where 

their homes and families live, to mainland U.S. They were forced 

to report to their new assignment within just a few days. 

In a recent briefing, the committee learned TSA is considering 

implementing another initiative using directed reassignments to 

improve the TSA workforce. If that is, indeed, the case, TSA needs 

to reconsider. The last time TSA used directed reassignments, it 

became a tool to retaliate. And that is one of the reasons we are 

having the hearing today, to ensure mistakes of the past are not 

repeated. 

Throughout our investigation the committee also faced obstruction, obstruction which prolonged this investigation. Now I am just 

going to stop right now, and repeat what I sai8d earlier on. I recognize TSA is under new leadership, and most of what I am describing, if not all of what I am describing, did not take place under the 

Admiral’s watch. 

Nonetheless, it was TSA then, too, and per our normal investigative practice, the committee requested documents from TSA. TSA 

refused to produce many of these documents. The committee then 

issued a subpoena to compel production of the documents, but 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
3 

under the direction of the department’s Office of General Counsel, 

TSA refused to produce these documents. 

In January of 2018, we sent a letter to Secretary Nielsen, requesting a transcribed interview with then DHS acting general 

counsel, Maher, and demanded the production of the subpoenaed 

documents. DHS and TSA refused to comply with either request. 

Finally, after the committee issued a subpoena 2 weeks ago, Mr. 

Maher agreed to appear before a transcribed interview. TSA, however, has yet to produce the documents. That is, to put it plainly, 

not going to be tolerated. 

As a result, our findings will be shared with leadership in the 

House and those responsible for appropriating money to the TSA. 

The documents requested relate to the underlying allegations in 

this investigation, which are misconduct and retaliation. And yet, 

the Office of General Counsel withheld them on the basis of a thinly veiled, almost exclusively self-serving privilege that, oh, by the 

way, is also inapplicable to congressional investigations. 

The House of Representatives derives its authority from the U.S. 

Constitution, and is bound only by the privileges derived therefrom. This committee does not, nor does the House of Representatives, recognize purported nondisclosure privileges associated with 

common law. That is true even when said privilege is irrelevant. 

That was not the case here. Here, TSA sought to rely on inapplicable privileges, which are, in addition to not being recognized by 

Congress, inapplicable. It appears, at least to this member, TSA 

sought to withhold this information through DHS general counsel 

from Congress because TSA simply believed it could. 

It is the responsibility of the House, and that includes all members, irrespective of political ideation, to thwart such intransigence. 

TSA needs to produce these documents to the committee in full. 

The problems laid out in the committee’s report are not simply 

issues of the past. TSA officials involved in wrongdoing, in some instances, remain in senior positions today. 

A number of OSE whistleblower cases have yet to be resolved. 

TSA and DHS OGC continue to refuse to produce compelled documents and material facts to the committee. TSA must continue to 

improve its leadership accountability and its culture. As one whistleblower testified, TSA’s problems are rooted in the areas of leadership and culture. Ours is a culture of misconduct, retaliation, 

lack of trust, coverups, and the refusal to hold its senior leaders accountable for poor judgment and maleficence. 

And for the safety of our nation, TSA must do better. And I will 

say, based on my interactions with you, Admiral, I am confident 

that you are going to be able to provide the kind of leadership, if 

you are given enough time to do so, which we will get to that during the Q&A part, the term of service. 

Further to that, before I recognize Mr. Cummings, I am not 

going to ask any trick questions. I am going to go last. I am going 

to ask you about the budget. I am going to ask you about equipment at the screening points. I am going to ask you to the extent 

you can discuss it publicly, about new emerging threats. I am going 

to ask you about air marshals. 

I am going to ask you about your budget, and whether or not you 

could use more resources. So I am not going to try to trick you 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
4 

when it is my time to ask questions. I think that you are the right 

person to provide leadership, but I know that new leadership is 

needed. And what happened yesterday, when a committee of Congress sought information related to a really important investigation, is not going to be tolerated. And I think that is true on a bipartisan. For those who like bipartisanship, stay tuned after yesterday. 

With that, Mr. Cummings. 

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

want to thank you for calling today’s hearing to examine the results of our bipartisan 3-year investigation of the Transportation 

and Security Administration. This issue is very close to my heart, 

because I helped launch this investigation, together with our 

former chairman, Jason Chaffetz, in 2015, after the inspector general of the Department of Homeland Security issued a troubling report on vulnerabilities in TSA’s screening operations. 

Later that year, we expanded our investigation to examine problems with TSA’s personnel management practices, after we received reports that a senior official engaged in serious misconduct 

was recommended for removal. Instead of being fired, he was given 

a settlement that included only a 2-week suspension, and no reduction in pay. Since then, we have sent many requests for documents, 

interviewed witnesses, and held hearings. 

However, our oversight efforts have been impaired significantly 

by the failure and outright refusal of the TSA and the department 

to produce all the documents and witnesses we need to do our job. 

For that reason, I fully support the subpoenas to hold those officials accountable. 

Now let me make one thing very clear. I supported these oversight efforts regardless of who was in the White House, under the 

administrations of both President Obama and President Trump. I 

did that, because the security of the American people should not 

be a partisan issue. 

Today, I am releasing a staff report that sets forth my conclusions and recommendations for how I believe we should move forward in this committee and in Congress. 

I ask unanimous consent that my report be made a part of the 

official record, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GOWDY. Without objection. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Based on all of our work over the past 3 years, 

I believe we need urgent reforms in three key areas: Security operations, personnel management, and transparency. First and foremost is security operations. 

When we started this investigation, we received troubling testimony from DHS Inspector General about serious vulnerabilities in 

TSA screening operations. Most recently, the inspector general 

issued a report that warned of ongoing, and I quote, 

‘‘Vulnerabilities with TSA’s screener performance, screening equipment, and associated procedures.’’ 

He also issued a report concluding that the contribution of the 

Federal Air Marshal Service to aviation security is ‘‘Questionable.’’ 

Based on our 3-year investigation, my recommendation is for Congress to demand sustained accountability from TSA on security 

measures. We need to press the agency to finally implement nuVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:08 Nov 02, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\32574.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
5 

merous unfulfilled security recommendations made by the inspector 

general, GAO, and others that have languished, in some cases, for 

years. 

I fully understand that many of these unfulfilled recommendations are classified, but I believe Congress needs to lodge a 1-year 

oversight effort that is focused on ensuring that TSA takes the 

steps it needs to take and to resolve numerous vulnerabilities in its 

security operations. 

Second, on personnel practices, we have identified many examples of arbitrary and unfair actions against both managers and security officers. We have also found several instances of retaliation 

against whistleblowers who report security deficiencies. The problem is that TSA employees have fewer protections against these 

kinds of abuses than any other federal employees. There is a much 

higher bar for TSA employees to clear; although, they have been 

doing so. 

In fact, just 2 weeks ago I attended an event to honor three TSA 

whistleblowers who received the Public Servants of the Year award 

from the Office of Special Counsel. 

My second recommendation is for Congress to consider legislative 

proposals to strengthen Civil Service protections to protect whistleblowers from retaliation, and protect employees against arbitrary 

personnel actions. 

Third is the absolutely critical need for greater transparency. 

Both TSA and the department repeatedly refuse to cooperate with 

our investigation. They refuse to provide documents we subpoenaed 

a year-and-a-half ago, including documents about the same whistleblowers who received those awards. 

They also withheld documents from the Office of Special Counsel, 

and it took an act of Congress, literally, to make sure that they got 

them. Just yesterday, our staff was finally able to speak with the 

senior attorney at the department, who was involved with many of 

these troubling decisions. The department refused to produce them 

voluntarily, so we had to subpoena them for a deposition. 

So, my third and final recommendation is for Congress to consider legislation to significantly enhance transparency at TSA, 

transparency about whistleblower claims, about settlement agreements, and about nondisclosure agreements employees are forced 

to sign. 

As I close, let me say this. I do not know who will control Congress next year, but based on the results of our 3-year investigation, I believe that we must do everything in our power to produce 

and redouble our efforts with regard to what we are moving to implement concrete reforms. 

With that, let me welcome the administrator. I want to thank 

you, Mr. Administrator, for being here. I want to thank the chairman for cooperating with us, and working truly in a bipartisan way 

to get the subpoenas out, and to move this investigation along. And 

he is absolutely right, this is a bipartisan effort. And, of course, I 

knew you when I was chairman of the Subcommittee on Coast 

Guard, and I know the type of man you are, and I know you are 

a man of your word. And so I look forward to working with you, 

and I look forward to hearing from you. With that, I yield back. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
6 

Chairman GOWDY. They called votes, so we are going to recess 

to go vote, and then we will come back, and got all the guys that 

are here in the queue, ready to go. So as soon as Mr. Cummings 

and I get back, we will recognize you for your opening. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman GOWDY. The committee will come to order. Thank you 

for your patience during that vote series. 

With that, we are pleased to introduce our witness, the Honorable David Pekoske, Administrator of the Transportation and Security Administration. Welcome. 

Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses will be sworn in before they testify. So, I would ask you to please stand and raise your 

right hand. 

Do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you are about to 

give should be truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth 

so help you God? 

Chairman GOWDY. The witness answered in the affirmative. 

There is a series of lights that indicate where you are. I am sure 

you are familiar with that. And with that, we would recognize you 

for your 5-minute opening statement. 

WITNESS STATEMENT 

STATEMENT OF DAVID PEKOSKE 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Chairman Gowdy, Ranking Member Cummings, 

and distinguished members of this committee, thank you for the 

opportunity to appear before you this afternoon. As this is my first 

appearance before this committee, and some of you don’t know me, 

let me open with a pledge to be responsive to the committee’s oversight, and to your recommendations for TSA. 

Additionally, given the nature of the topics we will discuss today, 

and the seriousness of the issues, I would be happy to meet with 

any member on any matter. And I further offer to meet with the 

committee staff in the future, if you would find that helpful. 

As you know, sir, I have just finished my first year as the administrator, and in this first year I have devoted the majority of my 

time to be at the front line of TSA, where the vast majority of our 

employees work. In this first year we have published a strategy 

and an administrator’s intent to continue maturing a relatively 

young agency. 

I want to develop a culture in TSA that is free of retaliation, that 

values employee input, and results in a very positive work environment, with high employee morale. This is so critical to our longterm success in protecting the nation’s transportation systems, and 

being good stewards of taxpayer dollars. 

I think we have addressed current discipline issues well over the 

past year. This is a positive beginning, and is reflected in data on 

discipline and whistleblower cases. And it is reflected in the just 

released FEVS, or Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, scores for 

TSA. These scores are the highest in TSA history, and they reflect 

improvement in every single federal employee viewpoint survey 

category. 

At the same time, we must reflect on and learn from the past. 

I have read the majority and democratic staff reports that you reVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:08 Nov 02, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\32574.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
7 

leased yesterday afternoon, and will study them further in the days 

ahead, as will all of TSA senior leadership. 

Simply put, I am deeply troubled by what I read. All of the individual cases described in your reports occurred before I became the 

administrator. And I assure you, the outcomes of some would be 

different today than what they were a few years ago. However, 

where misconduct has occurred, and the matter is closed, I respect 

the finality of those decisions even if I would have handled them 

differently. 

You will find, I hope, that I will be very responsive to your work, 

and importantly, that I will continue to improve TSA culture and 

processes to ensure we don’t repeat the mistakes of the past, and 

that the change is enduring. And I think that is one of the critical 

values that I can add as the administrator, is to ensure that whatever changes we put in place are memorialized and become part of 

the institutional fabric of TSA, so that TSA truly does continue to 

learn as an organization. 

I would also state that I had the privilege of following a very 

good friend of mine, Administrator Peter Neffenger, into this position. And the position I have taken since I have been the administrator was to build on the very solid foundation Administrator 

Neffenger left for me. And so I hope to do that for whom ever succeeds me. 

I will also note that several months ago I met with several whistleblowers to hear their stories firsthand. I told them I valued their 

input, and I will work hard to rid TSA of any behavior that smacks 

of retaliation, that their experience will have a beneficial impact on 

TSA. 

In my career in the public and private sectors I have always 

championed equality of treatment, fundamental fairness, transparency, strong leadership, and accountability. I am accountable to 

you, to the American people, to the secretary, and very importantly, to the TSA workforce. And yes, I am accountable to my 

workforce, and it is a privilege to hold the position I am in today. 

I have personally interacted with thousands and thousands of 

TSA employees in my first year in locations all around the country, 

and, indeed, all around the globe. They are, with rare exception, 

outstanding public servants. They are professional, committed, and 

they truly are great representatives of America to the millions of 

travelers we protect each and every day. 

I am proud of them, and grateful for the work they do, as I know 

all of you are as well. I want the American people to know that despite some of the difficult challenges we will discuss today, the vast 

majority of the men and women of TSA are dedicated, hard-working, and honorable individuals. 

Just this morning, for example, we had an example of their service. One of our lead officers at Milwaukee Airport, named Tony 

D’Amico, rushed to the aid of a traveler who was having a heart 

attack in the security checkpoint, likely saving that passenger’s 

life. Tony is a great example of the TSA workforce. 

After 9/11, TSA adopted a slogan that said, ‘‘Not on my watch,’’ 

reflecting that a repeat of 9/11 would not occur on the watch of any 

individual TSA man or woman. We changed that slogan very 

slightly over the past year to say, ‘‘Not on our watch.’’ And what 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
8 

that stands for is that while we are on watch in this agency, we 

will do everything we can to prevent another terrorist incident 

from occurring in our transportation system. 

That slogan also applies to retaliation against whistleblowers in 

cases of misconduct. I want everybody in TSA to say, ‘‘That won’t 

happen on our watch,’’ and we do this together. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Cummings, thank 

you for the opportunity to appear before you this afternoon, and I 

look forward to responding to your questions. Thank you, sir. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Pekoske follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
9 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 1 here 32574.001

Statement of David P. Pekoske 

Administrator 

Transportation Security Administration 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

before the 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee ou Oversight and Government Reform 

September 26,2018 

Good morning/afternoon Chairman Gowdy, Ranking Member Cummings, and 

distinguished members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting me here today to testify about 

the important work of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). TSA appreciates the 

Committee's vital role in oversight as we carry out our important security mission. 

Established in 2001, TSA is a relatively young and large organization within the Federal 

government. TSA was created quickly following the 9/11 terrorist attacks and charged with the 

critically important mission of reducing the chance our nation's transportation systems would be 

subjected to similar horrors in the future. Our people were essential to effectively standing up 

TSA then, and continue to drive the successful execution of our mission. 

[am honored to lead the 63,000 dedicated professionals who make up TSA's workforce, 

share our core values of integrity, respect, and commitment, and provide security for millions of 

Americans using our transportation systems each and every day. Since being confirmed as 

Administrator a little over a year ago, I have spent a significant amount of my time on the front 

lines ofTSA, visiting numerous airports, and engaging with employees at all levels of the 

organization. During that timeframe, air travel was also the busiest in TSA history and we are 

currently projected to screen more than 800 million passengers and crew this year, compared to 

771 million passengers in 2017. And we handled nearly four percent annual passenger growth 

over the last few years without commensurate increases in the size of our Transportation Security 

Officer workforce, which has impacted both training and morale. 
10 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 2 here 32574.002

I am committed to ensuring we train, develop, and lead our workforce as effectively as 

possible. This is why. in addition to engaging my leadership team and reaching out to our 

personnel, I have personally met with TSA whistleblowers to better understand their perspective 

and hear their concerns. I also appreciate the work of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OS C), 

Government Accountability Office (GAO), and DHS Office of Inspector General (DHS OIG) to 

help improve TSA as an organization and have met with them personally on several occasions. 

have invested this time because I want to better understand the Agency, its strengths and 

weaknesses. and what can be done to make it better. 

From my perspective, the continued success ofTSA is contingent upon our collective 

ability to rise to the challenge of outmatching dynamic threats to our transportation systems. To 

be effective and efficient in a changing environment, TSA must continuously learn from its 

experiences and constantly re-evaluate how it performs its mission. We must not just work hard, 

but we must also work smarter and more strategically. For this reason, it was a priority for me to 

issue guidance during my first year to explain to our work force, Congress, and our stakeholders 

how TSA would continue to strengthen the execution of our mission into the future. 

TSA Strategy and Leadership Principles 

The 2018-2026 TSA Strategy details the Agency's strategic priorities to be accomplished 

between now and our 25'h Anniversary. The three priorities, which reflect my focus on 

supporting frontline operations, transitioning to new technologies, and optimizing the use of our 

limited resources, are: 

Improve Security and Safeguard the Transportation System 

• Accelerate Action 

• Commit to Our People 

I have made Committing to Our People a strategic priority for TSA. Leadership is not 

restricted to the top tiers ofTSA; leaders throughout TSA must make our people their top 

priority. Our leadership principles as an agency include: 

• Caring for Our People 

• Communicating Effectively 

2 
11 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 3 here 32574.003

• Collaborating Early and Often 

• Respectfully Disagreeing and Committing to Final Decision 

• Taking Reasonable Risks 

• Being Curious, Learning, and Improving 

• Anticipating Challenges and Driving Results 

• Holding Ourselves Accountable 

• Being Adaptive and Resilient 

Our success depends on how well we attract, hire, train, develop, promote, and equip our 

workforce at all levels of the organization. To accomplish this, we want to ensure our personnel 

are trained both technically and as leaders, have job satisfaction and career paths, and are 

provided a positive workplace environment. Addressing employee concerns in a meaningful 

way is critical to our leadership principles. TSA has taken the following actions since I became 

Administrator in August 2017. 

U.S. Office of Special Counsel and Whistleblower Protection- Learning and Collaboration 

In the fall of2017, TSA developed and implemented live training on the Whistleblower 

Protection Act (WPA) and Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (WPEA) for TSA 

supervisors and managers from Supervisory Transportation Security Officers in the field to the 

most senior executives at TSA headquarters, including me. This training provided essential 

information regarding the responsibilities of supervisors, as well as the rights of employees, 

under the WPA and WPEA. To date, the training has been provided to nearly 6,000 TSA 

supervisors and managers. In addition, within the last 12 months, all TSA employees have been 

informed of all rights and remedies available to them under the WPA and the WPEA, in 

compliance with OSC's 5 U.S.C. § 2302(d) Certification Program. 

Additionally, TSA has worked cooperatively with and timely produced documents to 

support U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) whistleblower investigations, in accordance with 

all laws and regulations, including the OSC Reauthorization Act enacted in December 2017. 

When complaints do arise, TSA also engages with OSC to discuss resolution options so that TSA 

may address employee concerns. 

3 
12 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 4 here 32574.004

In February of this year, I invited six individuals who filed complaints with OSC against 

TSA to speak with me personally to get their input about how TSA can promote a culture of 

collaboration and engagement in the workplace at TSA. The conversations provided valuable 

input and gave me a better understanding about how TSA can address whistleblower concerns. 

TSA has observed a downward trend in the number of new whistleblower retaliation 

cases reported by the OSC. The number has decreased from 21 in 2016 to eight in 2017 to six 

thus tar in 2018. 

Employee Discipline Process- Improving and Accountabilitv 

In November 2017, TSA revised its policy and procedures for the administration of 

discipline. TSA's Professional Responsibility (PR) office is responsible for reviewing internal 

Reports oflnvestigation and adjudicating allegations of misconduct involving senior officials, 

including members of the Transportation Security Executive Service (TSES), law enforcement 

officers, and any employees investigated by the DHS Office oflnspector General. 

TSA also established an Executive Discipline Review Board (EDRB) to serve as the 

proposing official for disciplinary and adverse actions regarding TSES employees. The EDRB is 

administered by the PR office and is comprised of two rotating TSES members, one PR staff 

member, and advisors from the Chief Counsel's office and Civil Rights & Liberties, 

Ombudsman and Traveler Engagement. 

While PR remains responsible for determining whether there is a preponderance of 

evidence the employee engaged in misconduct and issuing proposed disciplinary and adverse 

actions, it no longer serves as the deciding official for these actions. The deciding official is now 

a management official within the employee's supervisory chain. This change is designed to 

reflect that management is better positioned to analyze the penalty factors, such as an employee's 

ability to be rehabilitated, an employee's past work record, and the effect of the offense upon the 

supervisor's confidence in the employee's ability to perform assigned duties. 

4 
13 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 5 here 32574.005

Anti-Harassment Program - Caring. Learning and Accountabilitv 

TSA is committed to providing a work environment free of harassment. In August 2017, 

TSA expanded upon existing efforts and established a comprehensive Anti-Harassment Program 

(AHP) to make sure allegations of harassment are addressed promptly and appropriately. The 

AHP is designed to ensure our employees are provided a workplace free from harassment, which 

has a direct effect on the quality of our work environment. The AHP supplements existing 

agency policy requirements for employees to report allegations of misconduct. 

The AHP requires management officials to report allegations of harassment within three 

days of becoming aware of the incident. Additionally, under the AHP, which is administered by 

TSA's Human Capital office, management officials must take immediate corrective action, if 

necessary, ensure an appropriate fact finding inquiry is conducted promptly, and implement 

appropriate administrative actions when allegations are substantiated. 

The AHP also serves to educate our workforce on types of harassment and the 

importance of reporting allegations of harassment. Members of the AHP train supervisors and 

managers on what constitutes harassment, as well as their obligations under the program. The 

AHP maintains oversight of the fact finding inquiries, and tracks and monitors each harassment 

complaint, to ensure the inquiries are conducted properly and appropriate administrative action is 

taken. 

Every manager and supervisor is responsible for the professional and appropriate 

treatment ofTSA personnel. From a leadership accountability perspective, supervisors and 

managers who fail to properly address harassment allegations may be subject to corrective, 

disciplinary, or adverse action. 

Career Progression Plan Implementation -Learning, Communicating and Improving 

Earlier this summer, TSA announced and began implementing a new comprehensive 

career progression plan for frontline employees. Training is the foundation of this plan, which 

includes strengthening technical competencies and also building coaching and leadership skills. 

Implementation will foster career growth and reflects an expanded investment in our 

Transportation Security Officers. Through defining career paths and tying pay increases to 

5 
14 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 6 here 32574.006

enhanced skills, TSA is working to provide greater transparency and opportunity to recognize, 

reward, and promote those who consistently excel in their ro !e. 

This year, TSA has also implemented a new Annual Proficiency Review (APR) process 

to complement this effort. The APR process, which represents a shift from a performance 

remediation to coaching model, focuses on improving and sustaining Transportation Security 

Officers' ability to correctly perform security screening procedures through receiving real time 

feedback based on observations in a live screening environment. 

Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey- Caring and Accountabilitv 

The Office of Personnel Management's Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) 

provides general insight into how our employees feel about working at TSA, where we are doing 

well, and what needs to improve. The 2018 FEVS results showed increases across every survey 

category, including a three-point increase in the Employee Engagement Index-a metric focusing 

on engagement and morale. The fact that 76 percent of employees agreed with the statement, 

"My work unit has the job-relevant knowledge and skills necessary to accomplish organizational 

goals," which represents an eleven percentage point increase from last year, is particularly 

encouraging. 

Conclusion 

Committing to Our People includes soliciting and listening to feedback, addressing issues 

and holding ourselves accountable for making improvements. TSA strives to remain a learning 

organization- one that continuously assesses and proactively improves all aspects of how it 

performs. 

Chairman Gowdy, Ranking Member Cummings, and Members of the Committee, thank 

you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I am honored to serve along with the 

dedicated men and women ofTSA. I look forward to your questions. 

6 
15 

Chairman GOWDY. Thank you. The gentleman from Wisconsin is 

recognized. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. I have a few questions for you. 

First of all, you know, in the past, the committee’s findings at 

TSA did indicate that whistleblowers were punished. Can you just 

give me your general overall reaction to that? 

Mr. PEKOSKE. I am sorry, sir. I did not get the whole question. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. What is your response to the fact, or how do you 

feel about whistleblowers being retaliated against? 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Well, first off, it is against the law. And secondly, 

I just think that is completely unacceptable behavior. And one of 

the things that I have tried very hard since I have been the administrator is to ensure that each and every employee in TSA knows 

that I want their input. They are the ones that do the job of the 

agency day in and day out. They see passengers. They provide the 

security service directly. I want their input, and I want to be responsive to their input. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. In the past there have been retaliations. 

I realize it was before you got there. Has anything happened to the 

people who retaliated against the whistleblowers? I mean is there 

something that you can point to that you can say, ‘‘This guy did 

this, this manager did this, and they are out of here,’’ sir? 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Well, you know, of course, whenever there—and 

again, this hasn’t happened since I have been the administrator 

—— Mr. GROTHMAN. Right. 

Mr. PEKOSKE.—but should an employee retaliate against someone else, that would absolutely be reflected in their performance 

evaluations. And if we considered it serious enough, it would be 

subject to disciplinary action. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. But I mean has that happened in the past, 

where if I am one of these guys who retaliates, I know that people 

are going to come down on me. Either your predecessor or you. And 

I realize you are new up there, although you can still maybe take 

action against people who did this in the past. Are there things 

that you can point to that is going to scare people out of this behavior? 

Mr. PEKOSKE. I would point to their performance evaluations; although, I can’t give you a specific example, sir, of a performance 

evaluation, just because I don’t have knowledge of that. But I 

would certainly expect that performance evaluations and disciplinary action would be an appropriate remedy. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. But right now, as of today’s date, you cannot think of one example where you can say, ‘‘This guy was at fault 

for coming after a whistleblower, and he lost his job,’’ or something. 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Not to my direct knowledge. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. One of the ways they punished people was 

by reassigning people to a different office hundreds of miles away. 

Will this ever happen again? Are you doing anything to make 

sure—I mean it is kind of surprising they even have the ability to 

do that, you know, transfer somebody from, I don’t know, Cleveland 

to Miami, or something. 

Will that ever happen again? And are you doing things to even 

make sure that such long-distance reassignments don’t happen? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
16 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Yes, sir. First off, to my knowledge, there has not 

been an involuntary directed reassignment in TSA since 2015. That 

policy was put in place and we have further strengthened that policy. 

Additionally, I have prohibited the use of involuntary directed reassignments for punitive measures. Now I would say that on occasion we will reassign employees based on the needs of the agency, 

but there are many things we consider in that process. We consider, first, the needs of the agency, second, the cost of that reassignment, and third, the needs of the individual. 

And there is a very robust process now, sir, that has oversight 

for all of those reassignment decisions, so that, you know, we have 

visibility of what decisions are being made, and can intervene, if 

need be. But there are no more involuntary directed reassignments 

for punitive measures. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. Now there was this survey, and I am sure 

you are aware of, saying that only 47 percent of your employees felt 

they could go to someone and say, you know, something’s wrong. 

There is a little scandal in this thing, by the way. 

You rank 332nd out of 336 agencies. The scandal is we have 336 

agencies. But that is not what we can deal with today. Given your 

ranking here, which is just almost beyond belief, what are you 

doing, other than training sessions, to make sure that agencies feel 

comfortable coming forth to supervisors? 

Mr. PEKOSKE. A couple things to comment on first, sir, is, first 

and foremost, when I mentioned the Federal Employee Viewpoint 

Survey, the trend in those surveys has been consistently positive 

for the last couple of years. So that means that whatever it is we 

are doing, and I will get to that in just a second, is having a positive effect. 

Additionally, the best places to work survey questions that go out 

to agencies every year, we have the results of those survey questions for 2018, and in every question category, we see an improvement year over year. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. Well, we have only had one since this one, 

and in 2017, it was 47 percent. Do you have inside information? 

What is it for 2018? 

Mr. PEKOSKE. For 2018, it is—I can tell you that in the category, 

for example, in the FEVS survey, under ‘‘Leaders lead,’’ in 2017, 

it was—in 2017, it was 40 percent. In 2018, it was 44. Under ‘‘Supervisors lead,’’ it was 68 in ’17, 70 percent in 2018. That is a pretty good score. And then in the intrinsic work experience, went from 

60 percent to 62 percent. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. I still have a great deal of concern. If you are 

at 62 percent, that means 38 percent of the employees are afraid 

to say, ‘‘Something is wrong here,’’ for fear they are going to be in 

trouble. That is a lot of people. 

Chairman GOWDY. The gentleman’s time has expired, but you 

may answer the question. 

Mr. PEKOSKE. I think what is really important, though, again, is 

the trend. And what I would like to see, sir, and I am working very 

hard to do this, is to see that trend, rather than going linearly up, 

it starts to take a more steep slope, to see improvement. I think 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
17 

we are at the position where we will see that in the next couple 

of years, I hope. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Thanks for coming over. 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Thank you. 

Chairman GOWDY. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized. 

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

Two weeks ago, administrator, I attended an awards ceremony to 

honor three TSA employees who have now been named public servants of the year. Here is a photo of Sharlene Mata, Heather Callahan Chuck, and F. Michael Abreu. They reported security concerns at the airport where they worked. But rather than addressing their security concerns, senior managers at TSA retaliated 

against these employees, employing a practice known within TSA 

as directed reassignment. 

TSA moved them to new duty stations at different airports. They 

forced them to move their families hundreds of miles away. And 

eventually, TSA paid nearly $1 million to settle these whistleblower claims with regard to retaliation. 

Now I must give you credit, Mr. Administrator, that I know that 

you were involved with that settlement. And I thank you for doing 

that. Because so often people who go through these kinds of things 

unseen, unnoticed, unappreciated, and unapplauded. But you 

backed us up in a way, members of this committee, who believe 

very strongly, all of us, in protecting our whistleblowers. 

Now Administrator, do you agree with former Special Counsel 

Lerner, when talks about the fact that she wanted to make sure— 

she said, ‘‘I think that the four protections of Title V applying to 

TSA would be very helpful, so that there is more of a feeling of fairness in employment actions, so that hiring decisions and promotion 

decisions are perceived as fair.’’ Would you agree with that? 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Sir, under the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, the administrator has broad authority to manage the personnel within TSA. All of the authority I need is already in ATSA 

to do the things that you describe. And we are taking steps to be 

able to do that. 

One of the things that I mentioned in my opening statement was 

the conversations I have had with the TSA workforce since I have 

been the administrator. And I have gotten a lot of good feedback 

from them, and the things that concern them. 

I have also met with the American Federation of Government 

Employees, the Council 100, that represents TSA employees, twice 

now. So I understand their perspective. And we will make significant movement in that regard. 

The final thing I would add, sir, is that the Whistleblower Protection Act applies to TSA equally. So even though we are not 

under Title V, that act applies to TSA employees, as does the Enhancement Act. 

So I will do whatever I can to ensure that we provide as impartial a personnel review system as we possibly can. That is on my 

agenda for this fall. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Very good. 

I want to talk for a minute about the Transportation Security Officers, or TSOs. Those individuals who work on the front lines to 

swing passengers’ baggage and cargo at our airports, yet are not 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
18 

covered by many of the Civil Service protections that apply to most 

other federal employees. In fact, they have far fewer protections 

than managers do. 

A recent GAO report found while TSA, and Customs, and Border 

Protection Agency had roughly the same number of employees, TSA 

had more than double the number of misconduct cases that CBP 

had in fiscal year 2016. GAO also found that between 2014 and 

2016 the number of TSA employees declined, but the number of 

misconduct cases grew from more than 13,000, to more than 

17,000. 

Administrator, do you have any insight as to why these trends 

have occurred? 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Mr. Cummings, with respect to the data, the 

45,000 misconduct cases, part of the reason that number is so high, 

and I think that number is unacceptably high, let me first state 

that, is the way that we measured it was a little bit different than 

the other agencies. So it is not necessarily an apples to apples comparison. 

But what we found when we looked at that data was that we 

were using misconduct for what were really performance issues. So 

what we have done is we have come out with some direction as to 

how we separate for our employees what is a performance issue 

versus a misconduct issue, and to not try to use the misconduct avenue when there is truly a performance issue at play. 

The other thing, sir, that is very important to me, it is in my 

leadership principles, is I want to move TSA away from a discipline-focused organization, where if somebody does something 

wrong, the first thing we think about is disciplining them, and 

rather move to more of a coaching and a mentoring system. 

My experience with our employees is they want to do a good job. 

They just sometimes need some extra help in being able to perform, 

and we should be more coaching and mentoring in that regard. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Well, I see my time has run out, but let me just 

say this. And the chairman has been very good at this. I think at 

every hearing that we have had, I have heard him say these words, 

and I agree. I have had good experiences with the TSA employees 

at the airports, but as I have told you, that when this committee 

was addressing the issue of the Secret Service, I had become convinced that they had been lulled into a culture of complacency. 

And because of the repetition of this job, I think we have to 

make—I am just curious, and perhaps you can answer it in somebody else’s question, how do we keep their morale up? I saw where 

we were almost at the bottom, as far as places where people—good 

places to work. We were like 360, and the bottom was 363. So we 

are close, just scraping that bottom. And so that is not something 

that you or none of us would be proud of. 

But more importantly, we want to make sure that our constituents are treated right, and they are able to have confidence that 

when they are being checked that it is—it is needed, and that we 

want to make sure that they are treated in a courteous way. Like 

I said, I am a member of Congress. I always get good treatment, 

but I don’t know about all my constituents. Okay? 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Yes, sir. And what we have done in that regard 

is we have changed our core values as an agency. Our core values 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
19 

now are integrity, respect, and commitment, respect being a very 

critical part of that, respect for each other in the workplace, respect 

for the Constitution, of rule of law, privacy rights, and importantly, 

respect for our passengers. 

The other thing that I have been working very, very hard on is 

to make sure that we introduce the technology tools that our officers need to be able to perform their mission. When I look at the 

IG reports and our own covert testing, a lot of the solution there 

involves technology. And so I have been very hard at work in doing 

that, and have gotten great support out of the U.S. Congress in 

that regard. 

The other thing, sir, is that within ATSA, I have the ability to 

set pay for the workforce, and ATSA gives me the authority to provide what is called in-band increases every year, which is different 

than Title V general schedule, which is every two or every three. 

Unfortunately, we haven’t used that authority, and that is something that I am exploring actively at this point in time. There is 

also, of course, a financial component to that. But, you know, one 

of the problems we have in TSA right now, particularly at the 

entry level, or the first two or three pay bands, is that most employees are at the very low end of the pay band. 

There should be a bell curve there. It shouldn’t be everybody at 

the bottom of the pay band. So I am going to work very hard to 

see if we can’t remedy that, at least start moving in a direction, 

but it is going to require financial resources. 

Chairman GOWDY. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized. 

Mr. PALMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Pekoske, we had hearings about mistreatment of TSA employees in this committee before. And first of all, I want to say that 

I have gotten to know the TSA employees at the Birmingham Airport, and I think they are outstanding. They do a great job. My 

concern is, is that we have had this issue of whistleblowers, and 

as the gentleman from Maryland just pointed out, the retaliation 

against them. 

Have you individually met with any of the whistleblowers who 

testified for the committee on retaliation at TSA? 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Yes, sir. I met with a whole series of whistleblowers a couple months after I came into the position. Very good 

conversations with each of them. Couple of things that came out in 

those conversations, no surprise to any of us in this room, first and 

foremost is they had good ideas that we should have listened to. 

And I really want, and I encourage every single employee in TSA, 

if you have a better way to do our mission, or a suggestion as to 

how we can improve, to please voice it. But we have got to welcome 

those voices when they are raised. 

The other thing that the whistleblowers said was that they are 

totally dedicated to the TSA mission, even after all they went 

through with respect to retaliation. That speaks volumes to me to 

their character. And one of the things that I reflected back to my 

senior executives after I had those meetings was the fact that we 

do need to do everything we can to make sure that whistleblowers 

feel that they can come forward, and not be in the category of whistleblowers, but just employees that have a better way of doing 

something, and that we seriously consider it. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
20 

Additionally, sir, we have trained about 7,000 or 8,000 people in 

the past year just on whistleblower protection, because I want that 

word to go out. This is serious business. We do not retaliate. And 

in fact, we should do something completely different. We should 

welcome that input into our —— 

Mr. PALMER. Let me interrupt you and ask you, in this training 

that you are doing, how much of that includes the recommendations made by the people who have been punished for being whistleblowers? 

Mr. PEKOSKE. It incorporates largely everything they said. 

Mr. PALMER. All of the ideas that they brought to you? 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Yes, sir. And the point of the training was, just to 

make sure that the workforce knew that, hey, if somebody has an 

idea, and they have a better way of doing business, you can’t retaliate against them if you think it threatens your position or threatens decisions that you made. You just simply can’t do that. So we 

wanted to raise the awareness. 

And we also wanted to raise the awareness for the workforce 

that if you feel you have been subject to retaliation, there is an 

easy way to report it. 

Mr. PALMER. Well, what concerns me a little bit here is that Deputy Administrator Patricia Cogswell recently informed committee 

staff that TSA is considering issuing directed reassignments to 

FSDs as part of its reorganization plans. Are you making sure that 

in this reorganization plan that none of these reassignments are 

punitive? 

Mr. PEKOSKE. A couple things on the reorganization, sir. First 

off, no decisions have been taken with respect for that reorganization. I get briefed at the end of this week. But the process we used 

has been completely open and transparent, and every single senior 

member of the security organization that runs the security in the 

airports has been involved every step of the way as to what is 

going on. 

Mr. PALMER. I appreciate that. But what I am really wanting to 

know is are you taking proactive steps to make sure that people 

who have been mistreated are not mistreated in this reorganization 

plan? 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Yes, sir. We will do no punitive involuntary reassignments. And that is something that we —— 

Mr. PALMER. Will you allow the employees who are being redirected to have an opportunity to speak or to request other assignments? 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Yes, sir. And we may need to relocate some employees. I don’t know what we are going to approve yet, because I 

have not seen the plan, but certainly —— 

Mr. PALMER. Let me ask you —— 

Mr. PEKOSKE.—you know, I want to maintain the management 

flexibility to put the resources in the right location. But I can assure you that we will have a conversation and a good one with each 

employee that might be affected. 

Mr. PALMER. Well, let me ask you this in the time that I have 

remaining. In March of last year, the committee requested documents pertaining to the whistleblower cases that had been withheld from the Office of Special Council, and TSA, and DHS, and 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
21 

OGC still refuse to produce those documents in defiance of a congressional subpoena. 

In my time on the Oversight Committee, that has been one of the 

most frustrating things that we have had to deal with, is the failure of various agencies to respond appropriately to a subpoena. 

And I want to know why these documents are still being withheld 

from Congress, and what you are going to do about making sure 

we get them. 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Sir, we provided all the unredacted documents 

that the Office of Special Counsel requested, based on the law that 

was passed by Congress in December of last year. 

With respect to the Congress, I follow Executive Branch guidance, but I pledge to you that I will do everything I can to accommodate as much as I can with Executive Branch guidance, but I 

need to follow the guidance within the Executive Branch. 

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I have one more question. 

I was sitting in on the deposition yesterday, with the principal deputy general counsel, Joseph Maher, and despite a bipartisan request, DHS refused to provide the committee with emails the federal security director sent to his son pertaining to a whistleblower 

retaliation case on the grounds of attorney-client privilege. Do you 

think this is reasonable? 

How can we exercise oversight and really resolve this situation 

if we are going to have to continue to play these kind of games? 

Mr. PEKOSKE. And having a conversation like you did with the 

department is—I am going to take my guidance from the department with respect to what information I am allowed to release. But 

like I said, I can assure you that I will do everything I can within 

that guidance to ensure the committee’s informed. 

Mr. PALMER. Well, you are supposed to comply with all the laws 

and regulations, including the Office of Special Counsel’s Reauthorization Act, and thus far, as far as I can tell you, you have not produced the documents requested by OSC until the December law required it. When you delay for months, and months, and months, I 

have a hard time seeing that as cooperative. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your indulgence, and 

I yield back. 

Mr. PEKOSKE. And yes, sir, if I could, and I understand your 

frustration, we did provide all the documents that OSC requested, 

once the law was in place. 

Mr. PALMER. Yeah. Once the law was in place, but when the 

committee asked for it, I think that you need to provide those documents in a more timely manner. 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Sir. 

Chairman GOWDY. The gentlelady from the Virgin Island, Ms. 

Plaskett, is recognized. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, sir, for 

being here. 

With respect to my colleagues’ questions just a moment ago 

about those documents, and the request for that, so it is your position that you are following the Executive Branch’s guidance. And 

if that guidance is counter to what your counsel is giving you, then 

what is your position with respect to us receiving documentation? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
22 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Well, the guidance, ma’am, that my counsel is giving me should be absolutely consistent with what the DHs guidance is. In fact, the general counsel is the direct supervisor of the 

chief counsel in TSA by our organizational structure. 

Ms. PLASKETT. And then so if that guidance leads your counsel 

to refuse to give this committee what it believes under our oversight laws were allowed to receive, then you will follow that guidance, correct, of your counsel? 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Which would then probably lead to this committee 

having to do what it has done in the past, which is then issue a 

lawsuit under FISA or FOIA request, which seems to me to be really counterproductive to the work of what Congress is supposed to 

be. Do you see a way for us to work through that without having 

to go to that extreme? 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Ma’am, what we’ve done, particularly with respect 

to the last request from this committee, is we have tried to find 

every accommodation we possibly could. A recent example of that 

is, you know, we were doing camera side by sides in TSA headquarters, with the redacted and unredacted version of documents. 

The committee staff had asked for more of a paper version. It 

would still be at TSA headquarters, but to be able to use a paper 

copy to make it more expeditious. Because it is hard to look at a 

screen and compare differences. And so I will find every way I can 

—— 

Ms. PLASKETT. Unless you are a teenager who is used to just 

looking at the screen and not paper, right? 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Right. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Okay. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Thank you. 

Ms. PLASKETT. This a conversation that you and I had before the 

hearing started, and thank you for reminding me about our last encounter personally with each other, which was immediately after 

the storms in the Virgin Islands. 

But one of the things I wanted to talk with you about is an attempt my office is making to act as an intermediary between the 

local government, and TSA, and Customs, and Border Protection. 

I have had conversations—my staff has had conversations with numerous people in both of those agencies, as well as me speaking 

with Secretary Nielsen during her last visit to St. Croix in the beginning of August, in which we have found that we had—so in the 

Virgin Islands we have a lot of individuals who come in from the 

Eastern Caribbean, and we try to segregate those individuals from 

American citizens and others coming from domestic flights. Because we are outside of the Custom zone, people have to be 

screened separately. 

Screening equipment was taken out of the St. Thomas office—out 

of the St. Thomas Airport, and we still have equipment on the St. 

Croix Airport, but we have been told that that is scheduled to leave 

as well. And I know that there has between some meetings the 

local government, Customs, and Border Protection, and TSA. 

The resolution that they came up with, meaning the federal 

agencies, is not satisfactory to our partner airlines that are bringing people in. We are not in a position at this time to purchase 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
23 

equipment on our own, nor can we afford to lose our traffic coming 

from the Eastern Caribbean. These are individuals who are not 

coming just for tourism. They are coming to use our hospitals, 

other types of facilities. These are serious revenues that are coming 

into the Virgin Islands. 

And I have told you personally that I find it very frustrating that 

I cannot get TSA to agree to a meeting with the local officials, my 

office, and Customs, and Border Protection. It is frustrating at the 

most basic level, but more personally, I find it very disrespectful 

that a member of this committee, in particular, a member who has 

gone through what we have gone through in the Virgin Islands, 

cannot get TSA to agree to sit down and have a meeting, and continually, between Customs, and Border, and TSA, pointing the finger to each other as being responsible. 

I am glad that you have committed that you are going to have 

someone from your office have a facilitated discussion, so that we 

can come to a resolution that we don’t continue to lose air traffic 

into the Virgin Islands. 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Yes, ma’am. And we will certainly have somebody 

from TSA at that meeting, and then I will personally follow-up —— 

Ms. PLASKETT. And that will be sooner rather than later, correct? 

Mr. PEKOSKE. That will be as soon as you want. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Okay. 

Mr. PEKOSKE. And then I will personally follow-up with you on 

that issue after that meeting is over. I would also just like to add 

briefly that I saw your leadership in action following Hurricane 

Irma in St. Thomas, and I really credit you for that. And thank 

you. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Thank you. Thank you so much. 

I yield back. 

Chairman GOWDY. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized. 

Mr. COMER. Thank you, Chairman Gowdy. 

My first question, whistleblowers have alleged that some previous TSA leaders prioritize wait times at screening tech points at 

the expense of security. In 2015, TSA implemented changes to its 

screening procedures to reemphasize security. Have you continued 

this approach? 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Yes, sir. The first thing I said when I got into the 

job is our main job is security effectiveness, and it wasn’t the job 

of our officers to worry about wait times. It was the job of management. 

Mr. COMER. Okay. What would you say to TSA employees in the 

field to reaffirm that security is their first priority? 

Mr. PEKOSKE. I say it every time I have an opportunity to talk 

to my workforce, and I put it out in documents. Now that is the 

most important thing we do. It makes no sense to have a lot of people moving through a security line very quickly with bad security. 

Mr. COMER. The House recently passed a bill requiring TSA to 

only allow members of trusted traveler programs to use Precheck 

lanes. If this legislation becomes law, is TSA prepared to implement it without any delay? 

Mr. PEKOSKE. We have had extensive discussions with our oversight subcommittee Chairman Katko, and we are prepared to start 

prototyping that actually in the next 6 months, or so, just to see 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
24 

how it works, and to make sure we have the right procedures in 

place. And I would add, sir, that this will improve security. It will 

add security. 

Mr. COMER. What type of turnover does TSA have? If your labor 

situation—do you have challenges finding TSA workers and retaining them, or is it pretty stable? 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Yes, sir. I think the attrition rate, the rate at 

which we lose people, is still way too high. It is a little bit below 

20 percent, but that is still way too high. And that drive a lot of 

costs, you know, cost of recruiting, cost of training new employees, 

and also has a security effect, because you have got the experience 

that is just not continuing to be built up. So that is a big concern 

of mine. 

The other thing I would just add is that the economy is doing 

very well in this country, which is a great thing, but, you know, 

it challenges us sometimes, given the wages that we pay for entrylevel people, to attract them in some markets around the country. 

So within the Aviation Transportation Security Act, I have the ability to put pay incentives in there, and I have done that, but that 

comes at some financial costs. 

Mr. COMER. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman GOWDY. The gentleman from Kentucky yields back. 

The gentlelady from Michigan is recognized, Ms. Lawrence. 

Ms. LAWRENCE. Thank you. 

At this committee hearing in March 2017, the former DHS Inspector General Roth testified that arbitrary personnel practices 

can have a chilling effect on whistleblowers, who might otherwise 

speak out about security deficiencies. At that hearing, I asked the 

inspector general, ‘‘If TSA employees are reluctant to raise these 

security deficiencies they observe, couldn’t that put aviation security at risk?’’ And Inspector General Roth answered, and I quote, 

‘‘Well, that is absolutely the case.’’ 

So administrator, do you agree with Inspector General Roth, and 

can arbitrary personnel practices chill whistleblowers, and put 

aviation security at risk? 

Mr. PEKOSKE. I completely agree with him, and it can absolutely 

put aviation security at risk. That is why I am so focused on it. 

Ms. LAWRENCE. So would you agree with me that is critical that 

this nation’s security—for our nation security, that the TSA have 

a personnel system in place that protects whistleblowers from retaliation, and protect employees from arbitrary personnel decisions. 

Mr. PEKOSKE. We have the authority already in law, ma’am, and 

it is against the law in TSA, as it in every other agency to retaliate 

against whistleblowers. Additionally, we do not do punitive involuntary reassignments at all. 

Ms. LAWRENCE. So I want you to know that we have had, I 

guess, previous hearings about this. The concern for having a 

strong TSA workforce, with integrity and the protections for their 

job, is a critical element of our security. And I appreciate you being 

here and agreeing, so when you lead, I expect for you to continue 

your commitment you are making here today. Because if there are 

some discrepancies or deficiencies, how are we ever going to get 

better, if we don’t have an environment where we are nurturing 

the fact of us all being on one team. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
25 

And I just wanted to congratulate you on something else you 

said, that we need to mentor and teach, instead of beating up or 

disciplining every employee. 

I thank you, and I yield back. 

Chairman GOWDY. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized. 

Mr. BLUM. Thank you, Chairman Gowdy. Good to see you, my 

friend. 

A couple questions here for you. Have you individually met with 

any of the whistleblowers who testified before the committee on retaliation at TSA in 2016? 

Mr. PEKOSKE. I don’t have the list of those that testified, but I 

have individually met with whistleblowers. In fact, it was at my 

initiative that we had those meetings. And so I met with several 

whistleblowers several months ago just to have a dialog with them, 

see how they were doing, what their experience was, so that I 

could—to the extent I —— 

Mr. BLUM. What was their experience? 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Their experience was one of great frustration, as 

I completely empathize with. I mean they thought they were offering up good ideas, and they got stymied by the organization almost 

every step of the way. 

Mr. BLUM. But not retaliated against. 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Well, the folks that I talked to, I think in every 

conversation there is always a feeling of some level of retaliation. 

And what I want to make sure we do is that not only do we not 

retaliate, I don’t think that is enough, personally, I think we 

should welcome different perspectives, and importantly, give our 

employees feedback as to what we think. Because not every idea 

is something that we can implement, but to have that dialog. 

Mr. BLUM. I am from the private sector, and culture in companies is important a lot. What is the culture at TSA? 

Mr. PEKOSKE. The culture is something I am totally focused on. 

In fact, when I published the strategy, when I published the administrator’s intent, if you read those, it is a guidance to the culture that I want to develop within TSA. And based on input I received from a lot of people —— 

Mr. BLUM. What is that culture? What are you trying to develop? 

Mr. PEKOSKE. I am trying to develop a culture where we all work 

together, where we support each other, where different points of 

view are respected, and we lift each other up, and we care for our 

people. And I want a culture where people look at their employment in TSA and say, ‘‘I can’t wait to get to work today.’’ 

Mr. BLUM. And that culture starts at the top. 

Mr. PEKOSKE. It does. 

Mr. BLUM. What do you personally do to make sure that that culture starts at the top? 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Yes, sir. What I personally do is, one, I talk about 

it a lot. And every time I—you know, I visit TSA men and women 

almost every single week, sometimes multiple times a week. In 

fact, I have just gotten back from like a 2-and-a-half-week trip 

throughout TSA. And I want to have that engagement with my employees, so I can reinforce those messages, and also very importantly, get a sense for how it is going out there. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
26 

And when I meet with employees, I don’t just meet with them 

in a big group. I walk around the checkpoint and I talk with people 

person to person. Because it is only during those encounters really 

that you are going to get some feedback that is of particular value. 

And so I want to ensure that I don’t lose touch with the workforce, and I also want the workforce to know that I work for them. 

You know, my job is to make sure that they have —— 

Mr. BLUM. Servant leadership. 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Yes. Absolutely. That, you know, they have the 

tools, and the direction, and the support, and importantly, when 

something happens that lands a transportation security officer or 

a federal air marshal in the news, if they followed our procedures, 

I need to be right behind them, and be out in front, and we have 

done that. 

So I think that is a very strong message and that is certainly 

what I will continue. I have done it for—you know, this is the way 

I have worked for 40 years. 

Mr. BLUM. How would you say the morale is? 

Mr. PEKOSKE. I would say the morale actually is not what the 

public perceives it is. If you read reports and things like that, you 

think, ‘‘Wow, the morale must be really terrible.’’ I don’t see it as 

being really terrible. I think we can make some improvements. And 

I think that we just need to have a concerted leadership effort to 

do that. But I also —— 

Mr. BLUM. Why is the perception not good then? 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Because, in a lot of ways—I will give you an example. On the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, yes, you know, we 

scored more towards the bottom than on the top, but it is important that everybody recognize we are improving. And, in fact, if you 

look just inside the DHS components, we are actually improving 

quite well compared to our other DHs partners. And we all want 

to move as far forward as we possibly can. 

But the story that doesn’t get out is the positive things that are 

going on, and that is a large part of what I try to do. 

Mr. BLUM. To get that story out. 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Absolutely 

Mr. BLUM. Get it out. 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Yes. 

Mr. BLUM. Are you trying to do that? 

Mr. PEKOSKE. I am. In fact, in my —— 

Mr. BLUM. In marketing 101, perception is reality. 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Yes. Right. And so every chance I get, I speak to 

that. I did it today in the opening statement. Every chance I get 

to address the media, and I do that often, I talk about the quality 

of the workforce that we have. Every chance I get, when I see an 

employee did something particularly good, I personally call them, 

and tell them, because that telegraphs throughout the organization. 

And as you know, sir, from your private sector experience, once 

you turn the corner and things start to move in the right direction, 

it tends to multiply, going forward. And that is really what I hope 

happens over the next several years. 

Mr. BLUM. I agree with that, and also, I just end with, again, it 

starts at the top, with you, and your leadership —— 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
27 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Mm-hmm. 

Mr. BLUM.—team. And you would agree with that, correct? 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Totally agree with that. Yes, sir. Thank you. 

Mr. BLUM. Mm-hmm. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GOWDY. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized. Mr. Lynch. 

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the ranking member, 

for holding this hearing. I have a couple of unanimous consent requests to enter into the record. A letter from the American Federation of Government Employees. 

Chairman GOWDY. Without objection. 

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you. 

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you. 

Welcome, Administrator Pekoske. We really appreciate you coming here to help the committee with its work. 

We had had a choppy relationship on this committee with TSA 

in the past. And that has been because of a lack of cooperation in 

our request for documents, and testimony, in some cases. 

I will say that it is bipartisan non-cooperation, from your standpoint. You have refused to give the democrats and the republicans 

helpful information. So I am just asking you to try to change that 

as well when you change the culture there at TSA. 

In the past, John Roth, who was the inspector general for TSA, 

a great American in our opinion, wonderful public servant, did 

wonderful work, he had red teams going out there, and—you know, 

red teams. They would strap weapons on their legs and go through 

the screening stations. It was his work that disclosed that we had 

like an 80 percent or 84 percent failure rate going through screening. 

So I am hoping that acting inspector general, John Kelly, who I 

understand is also very good, will continue to test our defenses and 

our security at those stations, and hopefully, our success rate will 

climb. 

We have got some outstanding issues. One, we have got this socalled Quiet Skies program, where air marshals were reportedly 

surveilling the general public. So this is not the case where in the 

usual context air marshals will be placed on planes when we know 

that someone who is on the no-fly list or someone who is a suspect 

is going to travel. This is a case where the general public is 

surveilled, and there is no probable cause to do so. So that doesn’t 

really fly with me, in terms of what our air marshals should be 

doing. 

So I don’t know how much you can say in this setting, but we 

need to re-engineer that program, so that we comply with the constitutional rights that Americans have, right? 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Yes, sir. If I can address both parts of your comments, please. 

Mr. LYNCH. Yeah. 

Mr. PEKOSKE. First, on covert testing, I agree. Inspector General 

Roth was a great partner to work with, and he helped TSA out a 

lot. And you could imagine being in my position when those covert 

test results are —— 

Mr. LYNCH. I am only giving you a minute now. So when we get 

down to one minute, I am taking my time back. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
28 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Okay. Got it. So anyway, we took his results, and 

we took action on them. And if you look at all the procurements 

we have going on right now, it is to bring the technology that both 

his testing and my own testing revealed. 

With respect to Quiet Skies, Quiet Skies is a risk-based program. 

It does not surveil the general public. It surveils, and puts air marshals on flights of people that we think present more risk in flight. 

It is a risk-based program consistent with all the law and direction 

that we have received from the Congress. And importantly, it is not 

a new program either. 

Quiet Skies has been around since 2012. The privacy impact 

statements have been published, and, you know, that information 

is out there available for the public to see. But to me, it is a very 

beneficial intelligence-driven risk-based program that results in 

better utilization of the Federal Air Marshal Service. 

Mr. LYNCH. Okay. Well, maybe we need to talk about that in a 

different —— 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Mm-hmm. 

Mr. LYNCH.—setting, in a secure setting then. 

The other piece that you are responsible for, you are the lead 

agency on pipeline infrastructure security. And in Massachusetts 

we just had a horror show up in Andover, and North Andover, and 

Lawrence, where we had I think upwards of 70 homes explode, because the gas company there, Columbia Gas, had put something in 

order of ten times the gas pressure through those lines. Went 

through all the checks and balances that we have in that system, 

and cased major damage, and at least one fatality. 

Now I know that you have just issued guidelines on pipeline 

safety. I also have been fighting in my own district, in West 

Roxbury, and in Weymouth, a couple of pipelines are going in there 

in very thickly settled residential areas, high-pressure gas lines. 

In one case, the gas line goes through a rock quarry that is blasting. You can’t make this stuff up. Going through an active blasting 

area, and I can’t get them to relocate that high-pressure pipeline 

out of that quarry, which is right next to a residential area in my 

district. I have tried everything. We have gone to court, and I still 

cannot beat the gas companies. 

What are you doing—in light of the dangers that we have now 

seen happening, is there any interest or initiative to take a closer 

look at the pipeline security guidelines that you have issued? 

Mr. PEKOSKE. So the pipeline security guidelines were just recently published, and actually, they are quite up to date, and represent a really good effort on the part —— 

Mr. LYNCH. It would be before these explosions, though. 

Mr. PEKOSKE. That is right, but the explosion really is a safety, 

not a security issue, as I understand it. It was an over-pressurization by the —— 

Mr. LYNCH. What is the difference —— 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Well, security would mean you have —— 

Mr. LYNCH.—between safety and security? 

Mr. PEKOSKE.—you have an actor who is trying to disrupt the 

system and cause a lot of harm to a lot of people. A safety issue 

is a misuse of a procedure that creates a safety situation that can 

also result in injuries to folks. But it is not by an actor. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
29 

And we work very closely with our Department of Transportation 

agencies in that regard. They have safety responsibility. We have 

security responsibility. 

Mr. LYNCH. Well, I don’t care who blows up my neighbor’s house 

—— 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Right. 

Mr. LYNCH.—if it is a terrorist or it is the gas company, it is a 

problem —— 

Mr. PEKOSKE. I agree with that. 

Mr. LYNCH.—right? So we need to eliminate the vulnerability in 

the system that allows that to happen. 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Mm-hmm. 

Mr. LYNCH. Whether it is, you know, stupidity or a nefarious intent that blows up the house, we need to secure the system and 

make sure that there is some countermeasures and safeguards 

against either actor, is what I am saying. 

So I think we ought to take another look at that, and I know, 

Mr. Chairman, you have been very indulgent, and I appreciate 

that. You haven’t cut me off, so I will yield back the time that I 

don’t have. 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Yes, sir, Mr. Lynch, I would like to come chat with 

you about Quiet Skies. I would enjoy that opportunity. Thanks. 

Thanks. 

Chairman GOWDY. The gentlelady from New Jersey is recognized. 

Ms. WATSON COLEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, 

Mr. Pekoske for being here. 

As always, I am impressed with the kind of commitment you 

have made to try to make this agency more respectful of its employees. I still think we need to talk about some structural deficiencies, as it relates to whether or not there should be a Title V 

coverage of your employees. But you have made progress, and I 

think that that is notable. 

I want to just talk to you about something else, though. I understand that you are considering organizational changes to the TSA 

that would majorly scale back the duties of the TSA’s international 

office, the Office of Global Strategies, by assigning many of its duties to other offices. 

Now given the grave threats to aviation emanating from overseas, cohesive international security efforts are as important as 

ever. And so I am wondering what is the impetus for these 

changes? 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Yes, ma’am. Thank you for your comment. And, if 

anything, I want to put more emphasis on international engagement. We have done a lot of work in TSA over the past year to 

raise the global bar on aviation security. I just came back on Monday from a meeting with, ICAO, the International Civil Aviation 

Organization. 

I just had a townhall yesterday, where I told all of my employees 

that I want to put more TSA men and women in significant positions internationally, because they can help us. 

Ms. WATSON COLEMAN. Okay. Then perhaps what I need to ask 

you is that before you engage in a restructuring, would you have 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
30 

a conversation with Congress about how that does, indeed, enhance 

the international oversight that we are concerned about? 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Yes, ma’am. I would be happy to meet with you, 

or whatever group you would like to convene. 

Ms. WATSON COLEMAN. Great. Because it just seems to me that, 

you know, perhaps we are misreading what your —— 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Mm-hmm. 

Ms. WATSON COLEMAN.—what it means by taking this agency, 

this office, and dispersing some of its employees and resources elsewhere. 

I also have a question to ask you regarding the long-awaited solicitation for the CT machines. You know, we have all just been 

waiting so much for this. But I was sort of disappointed to hear 

that you all are considering a single vendor. 

I am very concerned about a single vendor for a number of reasons. Number one, I think that it could possibly eliminate or reduce 

the innovations that come from competition. Number two, it sets 

somebody up to be the big dog that we are dealing with, and that 

reduces competition, and it might also reduce innovation. 

And number three, I think it has a negative impact on minorities 

and women, who are in that field, and are working very hard, but 

just don’t have the kind of resources to be the big dog that we are 

considering. 

So tell me, you know, your thinking about this. I know we are 

anxious to get these machines out. I know. I know. I know. But 

still and all, this short-term gain may have long-term implications, 

and I want to know what your response would be to that. 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Yes, ma’am. Thanks for the question. The initial 

solicitation, the RFP, was just released a couple of weeks ago, and 

it closes a couple weeks from now. We have five vendors, four very 

active, involved in the competition. The RFP says that we intend 

to select one, but reserve the option to select additional vendors for 

the award. 

But the important thing to keep in mind with this is, this is just 

the first procurement. This is using the fiscal year ’19 funds that 

has received great support from the Congress. Roughly 200 CT machines. We need to replace 2,000. 

And this is for the existing standard made better rather than an 

entirely new standard. So my point is, is that the much larger procurements are in the out-years, not in fiscal ’19. 

Ms. WATSON COLEMAN. Okay. So I am going to watch it closely. 

I hope I get reelected, so that I can. 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Okay. 

Ms. WATSON COLEMAN. But I want to hold you—I want to hold 

you accountable, that we are going to increase the diversity of vendors, particularly women and minorities, who just don’t get a 

chance to work in this field, and also that we can ensure that there 

is a kind of innovation, because things are changing so quickly. As 

soon as we figured it out, they figured it out, and we have to figure 

it out differently. 

I know you are committed to that in sort of a holistic way. I 

would like for you to make sure that your organization drills down, 

and understands that you are committed to diversity and competition here. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
31 

Thank you very much. And with that, I yield back. 

Chairman GOWDY. The gentlelady yields back. The gentlelady 

from New York is recognized. Ms. Maloney. 

Ms. MALONEY. Thank you for your testimony today. As a part of 

good news, 2 weeks ago, three TSA employees received the Office 

of Special Counsel’s Public Servants of the Year Award. And there 

is a photo of them up there, a photo of Sharlene Mata, Heather 

Callahan Chuck, and Michael Abreu. And they reported security 

concerns at the airport where they worked, but rather than addressing their concerns, senior managers at TSA retaliated against 

these employees. 

They moved them to a new duty station at different airports. 

They forced them to move their families hundreds of miles away. 

But these whistleblowers fought this retaliation, and TSA ended up 

paying them $1 million as part of a settlement agreement. That 

money came from the United States taxpayers, and those were tax 

dollars. 

So my question, Admiral, is, I am sure you agree, that the American taxpayers should not have to pay $1 million because senior 

TSA managers retaliated against employees reporting security concerns. Is that right? 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Well, the other part of it, ma’am, is that, you 

know, when we make a decision as to whether to engage in settlement negotiations, we also consider the cost of litigation on the 

part of the government. And that is a factor, is if the cost of litigation would cost us close to that amount or more, it might make 

more sense to settle the case. I am not saying that was a play in 

this case, necessarily, but that is also a factor when we look at settlement negotiations. 

I would say, too, that we appreciate what each one of the three 

of them contributed to TSA, based on what they—the information 

they provided. And additionally, the directed—the involuntarily directed reassignments, we don’t do anymore, based on this. 

Ms. MALONEY. Well, another approach is not to retaliate against 

people who are trying to make the airlines more safe. 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Mm-hmm. 

Ms. MALONEY. I would say you should be giving them an award 

if they are trying to make it—have a legitimate concern about safety. After 9/11, creating TSA was a prime goal of this Congress, and 

there are good men and women working there, and the security can 

save lives. 

But these funds, you know, if you hadn’t gotten into the fights 

with them, these funds could have been used to increase airport security, or even address the security deficiencies that these employees warned about. But there was a bigger problem. 

These employees filed whistleblower retaliation claims with the 

Office of Special Counsel, which is the federal office that handles 

these issues. But TSA refused to provide documents to the Office 

of Special Counsel about the case. So we actually had to pass a 

law, now that is an extreme, when you have to pass a law to force 

TSA to turn over those documents. And it was after the Office of 

Special Counsel got those documents. After they saw this retaliation, the TSA agreed to settle the case for $1 million. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
32 

The problem is that even now TSA is withholding these very 

same documents from this committee. We issued a subpoena for 

them a year-and-a-half ago, but the agency will not turn them over. 

So Admiral, why is TSA defying this committee’s bipartisan subpoena? What is the legal basis? 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Ms. Maloney, first and foremost, we don’t tolerate 

whistleblower retaliation. That has been my stance since I have 

been the administrator, so —— 

Ms. MALONEY. But this happened. 

Mr. PEKOSKE. It happened before I got into TSA, and I am not 

saying I am the magic wand that is going to fix all those problems, 

but I want people to know that that is not acceptable, and I will 

take action when those cases occur, if they do. 

Additionally, in my opening statement I said that, hey, I am responsible for good stewardship of public funds, and I would prefer 

not to spend a million dollars. I agree with you 100 percent —— 

Ms. MALONEY. But sir, Admiral, my question is right now you 

can hand these documents over. We have a subpoena for the documents. TSA is not handing the documents over. 

Now I know the members of this committee. If you don’t hand 

them over, they will pass a bill, forcing you to hand them over. 

They are not going to stop. So why are you not handing these documents over? They have a subpoena, a legitimate subpoena. 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Yes, ma’am. And I appreciate your concern. I am 

following Executive Branch guidance in that regard. So that is, you 

know, I will do everything I can to provide information to this committee. I believe very strongly in your oversight function, but I 

have limitations within the Executive Branch as to what I will provide —— 

Ms. MALONEY. No. No. No. The subpoena is not to the Executive 

Branch. 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Mm-hmm. 

Ms. MALONEY. The subpoena is to you. It is to you. 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Right. And I have not been subpoenaed. And I 

hope —— 

Ms. MALONEY. To TSA. To TSA. 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Right. Right. And I hope not to be. And, you know, 

I will continue to follow the guidance that the Executive Branch 

provides. 

Ms. MALONEY. But the Executive Branch and President Trump 

has not asserted any executive privilege. And not executive privilege, no deliberative privilege. Nothing. So they are not holding you 

up. They are not holding you up. 

And this was issued to TSA, and not the President, not the Executive Branch, not DHS. That means that you, as the administrator, 

have the ultimate obligation to comply with it. 

Mr. PEKOSKE. I understand all that. I am not an attorney. I am 

not going to wade into all the legal issues that are involved here. 

I will follow the guidance that the Department of Homeland Security provides. 

Ms. MALONEY. Okay. Well, you have two choices, according to the 

law. 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Mm-hmm. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
33 

Ms. MALONEY. Either produce the documents that have been subpoenaed, or produce a letter showing that President Trump has formally put forward executive privilege over them. That is it. 

So my question is, will TSA produce the documents that this 

committee subpoenaed more than a year ago, relating to the claims 

of those whistleblowers, who were clearly wronged? 

Mr. PEKOSKE. And I repeat my answer. I will follow the guidance 

that the Executive Branch and the Department of Homeland Security provide me, and I will try to find —— 

Ms. MALONEY. But the subpoena went to you. There is no guidance from DHS. And I doubt the President even knows about this. 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Mm-hmm. 

Ms. MALONEY. And he hasn’t exerted executive privilege. The 

paper is on your desk. Are you going to produce these documents 

to the committee, or not? 

Mr. PEKOSKE. I haven’t seen the paper. 

Ms. MALONEY. Well, this is the most—this is very annoying to 

me. So how are we going to handle this? We will make sure that 

the papers are on your desk tomorrow morning. Can you get back 

to the chairman with whether or not you are going to comply with 

the subpoena? 

Mr. PEKOSKE. The answer remains the same that I have just provided. I will follow the guidance of the Department of —— 

Ms. MALONEY. Excuse me. There is no guidance from the Department of Homeland Security. 

Mr. PEKOSKE. I receive guidance —— 

Ms. MALONEY. There is none. There is none from President 

Trump, there is nothing from the Executive. You can’t say I am 

going to follow their guidance. They are not giving you any guidance. They probably don’t even know anything about it. It is on 

your desk. Are you going to comply with the government subpoena, 

or not? 

Mr. PEKOSKE. I assure you, ma’am, that the department is aware 

of the issue. This is not my decision. This is a decision from my 

superiors in the Department of Homeland Security, and I will respect the —— 

Ms. MALONEY. No. No. We didn’t subpoena Homeland Security. 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Mm-hmm. 

Ms. MALONEY. We subpoenaed TSA. We subpoenaed TSA. Now 

do we have to have another hearing, where you come back and say, 

‘‘I talked to everybody, including the President of the United 

States, and they aren’t doing Executive privilege, so now I am 

going to hand over the documents.’’ 

I mean this is talk around—this is why people hate bureaucracy, 

and why they hate government. We subpoenaed. Do you know how 

hard it is to get a subpoena from the chairman? It was agreed to 

in this committee. We have asked for the information, and you are 

denying the information for legitimate oversight, which is the job 

of this committee. 

Mr. PEKOSKE. My understanding is that we have provided every 

accommodation we can. 

Ms. MALONEY. You have provided no accommodation. 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Yes, we did. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
34 

Ms. MALONEY. There is no way you can accommodate anything. 

You let us photograph something. 

Mr. PEKOSKE. That is right. 

Ms. MALONEY. But that is not what we asked for. We want the 

documents. 

Mr. PEKOSKE. We have worked —— 

Ms. MALONEY. You have not accommodated. We didn’t ask for a 

photograph. We asked for the documents. 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Right. 

Ms. MALONEY. And we have a subpoena, not for a photograph. 

We have a subpoena for the documents. And this is the national 

security of our country. And let me tell you, your whole office was 

created by this Congress. 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Mm-hmm. 

Ms. MALONEY. And there was a whole effort not to create it, not 

to—or to contract it out, but we said if police are protecting us, 

TSA should have the same standing. 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Mm-hmm. 

Ms. MALONEY. And it was a huge fight. And now the body that 

created you is now asking for some common-sense oversight, and 

you are denying us. And I find it outrageous and disrespectful, and 

you are running around the bush, saying a lot of gobbledygook, instead of coming forward with a—it is just a simple subpoena for 

some documents. In fact, I find your response so shocking, because 

I don’t understand why you would not comply with it. 

And then I have another question here real quick. I understand 

that we may hold a vote at tomorrow’s business meeting on this 

matter, and I plan to support measures to obtain these documents. 

And my final question is: Will TSA produce the documents that 

this committee subpoenaed more than a year ago relating to the 

claims of these whistleblowers, who were clearly wronged. It is the 

question I asked earlier. Are you going to produce them or not? 

Chairman GOWDY. The gentlelady is out of time, but you may answer her question. 

Ms. MALONEY. I have been out of time for about 10 minutes. But 

I was trying to pin him down, and —— 

Chairman GOWDY. I had noticed it, also, but —— 

Ms. MALONEY. I tried to get an answer from him, and I have not 

gotten an answer. 

Chairman GOWDY. That is why I had a very slow trigger finger. 

You may answer the question. 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Ma’am, I will do everything I can to accommodate 

the committee’s request. We did provide screen side-by-sides, not a 

camera shot, but a screen side-by-side of a number of redacted documents. 

We have also agreed to provide paper copies in our headquarters 

for committee staff to go over the documents. And —— 

Ms. MALONEY. Respectfully, that is not what we asked for. We 

will be holding another vote on this —— 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Mm-hmm. 

Ms. MALONEY.—tomorrow. 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Okay. 

Ms. MALONEY. I yield back. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
35 

Chairman GOWDY. The gentleman from New York—excuse me, 

North Carolina is recognized. 

Mr. WALKER. We are all a little shook up. 

Chairman GOWDY. They are both states, and they are close by. 

North Carolina. 

Mr. WALKER. Oh, well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and once 

again, you have continued to prove your more than fairness in that 

chair, since you have taken over. 

Ms. MALONEY. I am going to say it publicly. I am going to miss 

him. I really am. I am sorry that he is retiring and leaving. I think 

he has been a great member of Congress. 

Mr. WALKER. Well, I think what she was saying without the 

microphone was that she was going to miss Trey Gowdy. So make 

sure that is on the record there. Okay? All right. 

(Laughter.) 

Mr. WALKER. Administrator Pekoske, let’s get back to the matter 

at hand. The committee did find numerous instances of senior TSA 

managers sexually harassing female employees, with varying degrees of punishment. 

So let me just start with a broad question. Do you believe that 

TSA has a sexual harassment problem? 

Mr. PEKOSKE. I believe we have employees that have violated our 

sexual harassment guidelines, and those employees should be held 

accountable. 

Mr. WALKER. Well, I agree, but I think that answer to the question would, if there is an issue, that overall it would be yes. And 

obviously, with what, a little over a year that you have been there 

—— Mr. PEKOSKE. Yes. 

Mr. WALKER.—just barely, and from what we see, administrator, 

we do believe you are making great strides to that. But to say in 

the past that TSA has had a sexual harassment problem I think 

is a fair assessment. Would you agree? 

Mr. PEKOSKE. I would say yes. That is an issue for us, and we 

are aggressively addressing it. 

Mr. WALKER. Okay. This past November, TSA removed an assistant federal security director after he was found to have engaged in 

sexual harassment. Actually, made both sexist and racist remarks. 

His victim said he had been sexually harassing since 2010, and 

made inappropriate comments in the presence of other officials, including the airport’s federal security director. Is it acceptable for a 

pattern of harassment to go and in check for—well, for years, in 

that case. 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Totally unacceptable. 

Mr. WALKER. And do you think that whistleblower retaliation 

contributed to the victim not coming forward? 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Perhaps did, and that is really why I place such 

an emphasis on that. I want people to come forward. Otherwise, we 

will never address the problem. 

Mr. WALKER. You understand that the security, and the safety, 

and the protection, if you are going to root out a problem, these 

folks have to have the assurance that from the top administrator, 

down, that the retaliation has to cease and desist immediately. Is 

that a fair statement? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
36 

Mr. PEKOSKE. That is a fair statement, and I have done everything I can as the administrator to provide that assurance to our 

employees. We just need to continue to keep that message going, 

and our actions are going to speak louder than words. 

Mr. WALKER. Will you answer my question? Because I was going 

to ask you, how do you detect and prevent sexual harassment at 

TSA, including allowing victims to come forward with their claim 

or claims. Are there specific things, or is it just a culture you are 

trying to change? What are you trying to do there? 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Yes, sir. Great question. At the end of the day it 

is the culture I am trying to change. That is what will address this 

issue most completely. And really, from my perspective, I don’t 

think it should be just leader-based. In other words, when I leave 

this position, I want to leave a culture that was better than the 

culture I found. 

Mr. WALKER. You may be familiar with the OIG report on the 

TSA’s handling of a 2015 disciplinary matter involving a TSES employee. 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Yes. 

Mr. WALKER. DHS allegedly reviewed the disciplinary process 

that allowed an assistant administrator to stay at the agency after 

initially being recommended for termination. Specifically, the IG, 

the inspector general found, ‘‘TSA senior leaders deviated from 

standard policy and practice in a number of key respects, indicating that TSES employee received unusually favorable treatment 

in the resolution of his disciplinary matter.’’ 

Do you agree TSA’s handling of these cases are acceptable? 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Handling of those cases? No. Not acceptable. 

Mr. WALKER. Okay. And that is part of what you are saying here 

on record today, that you are committed to looking into this, and 

changing the culture as what we’ve seen as despicable behavior in 

the past. 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Yes, sir. Changing the culture, and then also putting written management directives in place, so that the process is 

memorialized and followed. 

Mr. WALKER. It is very frustrating, to Ms. Maloney’s point, of 

something that was created, and not too many years ago, by the 

House, by Congress itself, and to see this kind of rampant behavior. In this situation, we are talking about even after the lady came 

forward, the perpetrator sent her another sexually explicit email, 

I mean just really intimidating. So we want to make sure that this 

is a complete behavior change from here, going forward. 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Yes, sir. It is, and as I stated in my opening statement, the outcome of these cases would be different if they were 

before me. 

Mr. WALKER. Why, and I want to get off my script a little bit in 

my last 40 seconds, I want to know to you personally, why is it important to you personally, outside of the job description, that as the 

administrator of this organization, that this area is important to 

you, as far as creating this kind of work environment? 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Well, because it is fundamentally wrong to treat 

people this way. And one of the core values of TSA is respect. We 

have to have respect for each other, and I want to create a workplace environment that people look forward to come to work every 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
37 

day, have high job satisfaction. I can’t do it if people feel like they 

are being retaliated against. Additionally, it has a very negative effect on security, and my mission is to ensure the security of the 

transportation system. 

My focus is always going to be on our employees, and doing 

whatever I can to make our employees’ job better for them, and 

their job satisfaction higher, and for them to look back at the senior leadership at TSA, and say, ‘‘Okay. They get it, and they’re supporting me, and they’ve added value to my ability to do the very 

important job I have.’’ 

Mr. WALKER. Thank you for your remarks, administrator. With 

that, I yield back to the chairman. Thanks. 

Chairman GOWDY. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized. 

Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, administrator for coming in today. 

First of all, I understand that TSA performs just a vital role for 

our national security. So thank you to you and the men and women 

of the TSA for doing what you do every day. 

And I also think that the vast majority of your personnel try to 

do their job commendably. However, I am concerned about some of 

the issues that have been raised by my colleagues, and I would like 

to bring up another issue. 

I represent the 8th congressional district of Illinois. This is the 

district that is bordering on the west and northwest borders of 

O’Hare International Airport. I happen to have the runways, but 

not the terminal in my district. However, what happens at the terminal affects a lot of my constituents. 

One of the things that I have heard repeatedly from my constituents, especially Muslim-American constituents, is a real concern 

about bias, and the way that they are screened. And it doesn’t just 

include Muslim-Americans, it includes people of South Asian heritage. 

And I want to hear from you whether you have heard these concerns as well. What are you doing about this? Because this is very 

serious, and it seems to be protracted. I have heard this now for 

years. And I would like to hear, also, after you finish, about a specific incident that a lot of people are discussing. So go ahead. 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Sir, thanks for the question. Thanks for your comments about the workforce. 

I would tell you that yes, I have heard those comments before as 

well. And what we have done as an agency is actively engaged with 

community groups around the country to make sure that we understand their perspective, feedback that perspective to our workforce, 

and train our workforce on the—how they might come across at 

times, however unintentional, perhaps. 

Additionally, as I travel around the country visiting airports, 

where I do find communities of Muslim-Americans, for example, I 

make an effort to reach out to those communities so that I can personally engage with them to understand their perspective. 

We also, from TSA headquarters every year, have a multicultural 

day, where we bring in representatives from across the spectrum 

of the cultures of the United States, and we have a discussion with 

them. I was able to have a good conversation with folks that were 

in attendance just about 2 months ago. Very good gathering. And 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
38 

the feedback that I got from the attendees there, because I spent 

some time to walk around and chat as much as I could individually 

with them, was they appreciated actually the progress that TSA 

has made over the course of time. 

And the final thing I will say, sir, because I don’t want to consume too much time, is that we do provide very quick website access for any issues that any passenger might have with what they 

could expect at TSA, and importantly, to provide us feedback on 

their experience. 

Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. I understand. I am glad that you are concerned about this, as I am, but I think that we need to see more 

action on this front, because I am hearing persistent complaints 

about this. And specifically, this was actually brought to my attention by my wife the other day, and it happened just recently, where 

a Muslim-American woman says that TSA basically strip searched 

her, and forced her to show her pad. 

‘‘In a complaint filed by the ACLU, 27-year-old Zainab Merchant 

said that TSA agents subjected her to a 2-year program of enhanced intrusive and humiliating security checks at airports 

around the United States simply for being a Muslim-American.’’ 

This appeared in the Washington Post, and then in other outlets 

as well. 

And this really bothers me a lot. This bothers me to no end, because, you know, we cannot in 2018 be discriminating against people based on their religion, or their ethnicity, or the color of their 

skin, or any other feature. And I hear from business people routinely that now they have to allot, I am talking about MuslimAmerican business people, who are traveling through O’Hare constantly, all over the place, that they have to allocate an additional 

two, three hours to make sure that they can get through TSA, even 

when they have TSA Precheck sometimes. And they have just come 

to accept it. And to me, that is not acceptable. 

So I need to have a commitment from you to work with my office 

to investigate these things, and to try to do something about it, because it is getting out of hand. And it is not just Muslim-Americans. It is people who are not—I mean they are just of a different 

heritage than the mainstream. 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Yes, sir. I agree with you 100 percent. What I 

would offer is that I would like to come out, and if you could, or 

your staff could arrange an engagement for me with those communities, I would be most happy to do that, because I want to hear 

their perspectives. 

Our policy is we absolutely do not discriminate. If somebody has 

to plan three hours routinely to get through the security checkpoint, there is an issue there, and I want to understand it. 

Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Yeah. I mean the worst part is some of 

them have just kind of resigned themselves to this. 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Yeah, they shouldn’t. 

Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. And they are not complaining anymore, 

because it is like, oh, well, you know —— 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Right. 

Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI.—that is the way it is. And I find that unacceptable. So I am glad that you are willing to work with us, and 

we will follow-up. And we have got to root this out. As I believe 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
39 

there is some bias here, we have got to root it out, because that 

is not good for our community, our country, or national security, at 

the end of the day. 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Yes, sir, and I appreciate your help. 

Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Thank you. 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Thank you. 

Chairman GOWDY. Admiral, I am last, so thank you for your patience. I will get the bad part out of the way first. 

Yesterday, DHS managed to do something that really I wasn’t 

sure even God could do in this political environment, which is unite 

republicans and democrats. So proportionality is important. Protecting witnesses is important. You know, each of the members on 

both sides, we have friends on Appropriations on both sides of the 

aisle, and I understand privilege probably, I guess, maybe as well 

as anybody in the House. But we are not going to go away, so to 

the extent that you could deliver that message back. 

And I realize that you are not making the decision. Somebody 

else is. But Congress becomes very apolitical and bipartisan when 

documents we believe we are entitled to are withheld for a long period of time with a dearth of legal justification. So if you can help 

us communicate that. 

I realize you are not the decisionmaker. I am not going to beat 

you up over it, but if you can help us deliver that message. I don’t 

know who will sitting here. I know it will not be me, but somebody 

will be sitting here in January, and I don’t think the issue is going 

to go away. 

So with that, a couple of things I want to ask you about. I want 

to ask you about equipment at your security checkpoints, what you 

need. Do you have it? Are you excited about what is coming? And 

given the setting we are in now, there may be things you can discuss in another setting, but what could you tell us from an equipment standpoint that would help you? 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for the question. And 

we are in the very beginning stages of a massive technology refresh 

at our security checkpoints. And it is basically the result of the covert testing results that we saw, that indicated that the equipment 

that we had was not up to the task that was in front of us. 

And so we have started with replacing the X-ray machines at our 

security checkpoints for carry-on bags. And the technology is the 

CT, or CAT scan, technology, which is not just a little bit better, 

but a lot better than the current technology we have in place. 

And additionally, and very important to me, is that it provides 

an interface for our employees that is, again, much, much better 

than what we have in place. Rather than a two-dimensional image, 

and trying to discern what is in somebody’s carry-on bags in 2D, 

the CT machines give you 3-dimensional images, which will mean, 

for us, it is better security, and for passengers, it is going to be 

much more convenient for them. Because already, where those CT 

machines are deployed, passengers don’t have to take laptops out 

of their carry-on bags. Ultimately, they won’t have to take out anything from their carry-on bags, because we will be able to see that. 

The next thing that we are looking at at our security checkpoints 

is a way to get better at identity for verification and risk management off of passengers that come through the checkpoint. We are 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
40 

trying very hard to ensure that, you know, to the extent we have 

information that we can use to identify risk by passenger, for example, the risk in a Precheck-lane passenger, is, by definition, less, 

because a Precheck passenger has given more information to the 

government, as provided by a metric to the government. And, 

therefore, we recognize that we have more knowledge of that person’s background, and provide them a different level of screening 

than a passenger who didn’t provide that information. 

And so this new technology will allow us to, one, better validate 

that the driver’s license you provide, or the passport you provide 

is, in fact, authentic. And so rather than the officer looking down 

and just examining visually the credential, the machine will verify 

the authenticity of the credential. 

Additionally, the machines are connected to our secure flight 

database, which basically allows us to see what the risk of that 

passenger is, Precheck, standard lane, or perhaps a selectee, and 

also gives us the flight information for that passenger. 

So for passengers, once this technology is fully deployed, they 

won’t have to display a boarding pass, because we do have cases 

nearly every single month where we have a fraudulent I.D. or 

fraudulent boarding pass presented at the checkpoint. 

And then finally, from a technology perspective, sir, we are working to improve the on-body alarm system that we have, where you 

walk through and you put your hands over your head. There is updates to that technology, and in different technologies that we are 

examining. 

So my hope is that over the next 5 years, passengers will see an 

entirely different suite of technology, and importantly, our adversaries will recognize that our detectability is continuing to improve. 

The one thing that I will add is that we have deployed more and 

more canine teams at our security checkpoints. Canines are very 

effective at detection, very effective deterrents value as well. And 

thanks to the support of the Congress, both the House and the Senate, again, a very bipartisan issue is a stronger support for our canine programs in terms of numbers. 

And so I expect we have both House and Senate marks in our 

fiscal ’19 appropriation bill that increases the number of teams by 

50, which is a very good and significant add, and I appreciate that 

support. 

Chairman GOWDY. I appreciate you bringing up canines. I was 

going to ask you about them in honor of our former chairman, 

Jason Chaffetz, who never missed an opportunity to advocate for 

them. So in honor of him, thank you for addressing that. 

Your term of service, like the FBI director’s there for 10 years. 

I guess Mick Mulvaney’s an at-will employee. What are the terms 

of your service? Do you have a time period that you are nominated 

and confirmed to serve? 

Mr. PEKOSKE. No, sir. I serve with the pleasure of the president, 

but there is legislation that is before the floor of the House, I believe this afternoon, that includes a provision to make the administrator of TSA a 5-year term. And it also makes that retroactive to 

my start of office. 

I 100 percent support that. As we have seen, and we have talked 

about over the course of this afternoon, we do need to continue to 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
41 

improve the culture in TSA. We do need to make continued sustained improvements in the agency. I think it is a terrific agency, 

as it sits right now. It can be much better. And having a longer 

period of time to be able to put those changes in place I think is 

very valuable. 

I am the seventh confirmed administrator for TSA, but over the 

course of time, and in the course of your investigation, you saw a 

number of acting officials that were in place. And this is not a criticism of those acting officials, it is just when you come in, and you 

are only there for a short period of time, and not necessarily familiar with TSA, it does make the decision process a little bit more 

challenging. 

So I think it is very important to provide the TSA administrator 

a 5-year term, and I 100 percent support that. And I hope you will 

vote in the affirmative on that. 

Chairman GOWDY. My friend from Maryland made reference to 

air marshals in his opening statement. What update can you give 

us on the advocacy of that program? From time to time I bump into 

them in travels. Personally speaking, I find it very reassuring to 

know that they are on airplanes, but I am not an expert on whether or not that is where the trends are going in the future. What 

is your position on that, and how are they being used now? 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Yes, sir. Thanks for that question. I think the Federal Air Marshal Service is an outstanding component of TSA. 

They provide all of our in-flight security, and also provide landside 

security in the form of the VIPR teams, the Visible Intermodal Protection Response teams that you may see at a transportation hub 

like Washington Metro, for example, or Amtrak, supporting state, 

and local, and industry enforcement mechanisms. 

But with respect to the Federal Air Marshal Service, in-flight security is still very important. And one of the strengths of the TSA 

system are the multiple elements of security we have. And so when 

a passenger starts out, and they buy a ticket, our security process 

starts, in terms of our vetting of that passenger. And then there 

are several layers, including canines, that a passenger encounters 

in the course of proceeding to the gate of an aircraft. 

But the air marshals provide our in-flight security. And even 

though we have had advancements in reinforced cockpit doors, and 

we do have a very effective, I think, and very beneficial federal 

flight deck officer program, where first officers and pilots volunteer 

their time to be trained by TSA to handle weapons to protect a 

cockpit, and are, in fact, deputized by us when they are onboard 

an aircraft, even though we have those two mitigations in place, 

the risk in flight is still there. 

Of course, I look at the intelligence every single day, and that indicates to me that we still very much need to have a Federal Air 

Marshal Service in place. And so what I have done since I’ve been 

the administrator is really look at how we deploy our federal air 

marshals, and have published a new concept of operations that deploys federal air marshals primarily on flights where we think the 

most risk is represented by the people on board those flights. 

And in my view, that is a better risk mitigation process, and also 

allows us to use all the tools that have been developed by TSA over 

time to ensure that we can assess risk by passenger. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
42 

And I am really very happy with the performance of the Federal 

Air Marshal Service. I will tell you, sir, that sometimes people 

think that being a federal air marshal is an easier job. It is not. 

It is a very difficult job to do. And air marshals have significant 

challenges. And one of the things that I have done in this regard 

is to look at the fatigue of just flying all day long, and particularly 

when you are on a domestic flight, where you are doing maybe 

three flights a day, where you are going up and down, that can be 

very fatiguing if you do it three, four, five days in a row. 

And so we backed off some of our pace to ensure that we address 

the fatigue issues that many air marshals highlighted for me when 

I either talk to them just before or just after a flight, or talk to 

them at their field offices. 

But, you know, bottom line for me is it is a very, very important 

layer of TSA security. I really appreciate the professionalism of our 

Federal Air Marshal Service, and I am doing everything I can to 

ensure we take a more risk-based approach to how we deploy our 

resources. 

Chairman GOWDY. Well, Admiral, I am out of time. We are all 

kind of creatures of our own personal experience, and I don’t pretend that it is anybody else’s, but I fly a lot, and I don’t wear a 

member pin. So I guess I will maybe possibly understand my colleagues to think that that impacts how TSA employees treat them. 

I don’t wear one. So unless they watch really old episodes of Forensic Files, my guess is they have no idea who I am, and I have 

never been treated anything other than professionally, all the airports I have been at, particularly, obviously, Charlotte, and Greenville, and DCA, the most. But never had a negative experience in 

8 years that I have been flying on an almost weekly basis. So that 

doesn’t mean other people haven’t. I am sure they have, but they 

have been great. 

Appreciate all the service you have given our country, and all the 

different ways that you have done it. And I am sure that you will 

agree with me, as you try to kind of change the culture, and take 

the agency in a different direction, employees have got to have confidence that there is just one set of rules. It is not two different sets 

of rules, dependent on whether or not you know the right people. 

And that report was hard for me to read. I am glad the folks did 

it. I read every word of it. That is not what I think of when I think 

of folks in leadership positions in public service. So all the best to 

you as you try to sort that out, and appreciate your service, and 

thank you for being here today. 

Mr. PEKOSKE. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate it. 

Chairman GOWDY. With that, we are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:48 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(43) 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
44 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 7 here 32574.007

Urgent Reforms Needed at TSA 

Prepared for Ranking Member Elijah E. Cummings 

Democratic Staff Report 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

U.S. House of Representatives 

September 2018 

democrats-oversight.house.gov 
45 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 8 here 32574.008

EXECUTIVESU~Y 

On Wednesday, September 26,2018, the Committee on Oversight and Government 

Reform will hold a hearing with the Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration 

(TSA), Vice Admiral David Pekoske. The purpose of the hearing is to review the results ofthe 

Committee's three-year investigation into security deficiencies and personnel management 

practices at TSA. 

This report was prepared by the Democratic staff of the Committee at the request of 

Ranking Member Elijah E. Cummings to briefly summarize the key results of the investigation 

and offer concrete proposals for reforms that are critical to safeguarding the American people 

and protecting TSA whistleblowers from retaliation. 

In June 2015, the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

issued a classified report on TSA screening operations. In response, Ranking Member 

Cummings and then-Chairman Jason Chaffetz issued a request for documents regarding the 

Inspector General's findings and the results ofTSA's own internal covert tests. 1 

In November 2015, Ranking Member Cummings and then-Chairman Chaffetz expanded 

their investigation to include a review ofTSA personnel management, including reports that a 

senior official who engaged in serious misconduct-and was recommended for removal-was 

given a settlement that included only a two-week suspension and no reduction in pay. 

Ranking Member Cummings worked closely with then-Chairman Chaffetz and, 

subsequently, Chairman Trey Gowdy, across the administrations of both President Obama and 

President Trump to send more than a dozen letters requesting documents and infotmation from 

TSA, conduct multiple hearings, interview whistleblowers and agency personnel, and review 

thousands of pages of documents. 

In March 201 7, Ranking Member Cmmnings supported then-Chairman Chaffetz' 

subpoena to TSA after the agency refused to provide documents to the Office of Special Counsel 

(OSC), and Ranking Member Cummings subsequently wrote to Chai1man Gowdy in November 

2017 to "request that the Committee take steps to enforce its subpoena."2 

Ranking Member Cununings also requested that the Committee "issue subpoenas to 

compel depositions with three TSA officials-Deputy Administrator Huban Gowadia, Chief 

Counsel Francine Kerner, and former Acting Assistant Administrator Steven Colon-who have 

1 Letter from Chairman Jason Chaffetz and Ranking Member Elijah E. Cummings, House Committee on 

Oversight and Government Reform, to Acting Deputy Administrator Mark Hatfield, Transportation Security 

Administration (June 4, 2015) (online at https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/2015-06-04-JCEEC-to-Hatfield-TSA-Cove1i-Testing-due-6-18-resp-6-12-briefing. pdf). 

2 Letter from Ranking Member Elijah E. Cummings to Chainnan Trey Gowdy, House Committee on 

Oversight and Government Reform (Nov. 14, 2017) (online at https://democratsoversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/20 17 -ll14.EEC%20to%20Gowdy%20re.TSA_.PDF). 

2 
46 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 9 here 32574.009

all declined to participate voluntarily in transcribed interviews since May." Following this 

request, the Committee conducted transcribed interviews with Ms. Kerner on December 5, 2017, 

Mr. Colon on December 7, 2017, and Dr. Gowadia on December 20, 2017. 

Most recently, Ranking Member Cummings supported a subpoena issued by the 

Committee to depose DHS Principal Deputy General Counsel, Joseph Maher, following his 

months-long refusal to appear voluntarily for a transcribed interview. 

Despite the failure ofTSA and DHS to fully cooperate with the Committee's 

investigation, this staff report summarizes serious security deficiencies identified during the 

investigation, as well as numerous examples of arbitrary personnel practices and whistleblower 

retaliation at TSA. 

This report also identifies the need for urgent reforms in three areas-security operations, 

personnel management, and transparency-to help ensure the safety of the American people, and 

it sets forth three key recommendations from Ranking Member Cummings: 

Recommendation #!-Security Operations: 

Based on the classified and unclassified information obtained by the Committee as part of 

its three-year investigation, Ranking Member Cummings recommends that Congress 

demand sustained accountability from TSA officials to finally implement unfulfilled 

security recommendations made by the Inspector General, GAO, and others that have 

languished in some cases for years. 

Although many of these unimplemented recommendations are classified, Congress 

should launch a one-year oversight effort-including regular meetings, briefmgs, and if 

necessary, hearings--to ensure that TSA finally implements these recommendations and 

resolves security vulnerabilities. 

Recommendation #2-Personnel Management: 

Ranking Member Cummings recommends that Congress consider legislative proposals to 

strengthen civil service protections at TSA to prevent retaliation against whistleblowers 

who report security deficiencies and to ensure that employees are not subject to arbitrary 

personnel actions, which ultimately degrade security. 

Recommendation #3-Transparency: 

Ranking Member Cummings recommends that Congress continue oversight and consider 

legislation to significantly enhance transparency regarding whistleblower claims, 

settlement agreements, and non-disclosure agreements. 

3 
47 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 10 here 32574.010

I. REFORMS URGENTLY NEEDED FOR TSA SECURITY OPERATIONS 

In November 2015, DHS Inspector General John Roth testified before the Committee 

regarding his assessment ofTSA's security vulnerabilities. He stated: 

[W]hat we found in a series of tests, which took place across the country at different 

airports of different sizes, using a variety of concealment methods by individuals who are 

auditors with no specialized training or skill, is a universal, disappointing performance by 

the TSA screening checkpoint. 3 

When asked by Rep. Gerald Connolly, "Would it be fair to say, without compromising 

security, that some significant breaches occurred," Inspector General Roth answered, "Yes."4 

Last fall, two years after Inspector General Roth's testimony, his office issued two new 

reports: one on TSA security operations, and another on the Federal Air Marshals Service 

(FAMS). Both reports are classified, but the Inspector General's office issued unclassified 

executive summaries of the reports. 

Regarding TSA' s screening operations, the Inspector General wamed, "We identified 

vulnerabilities with TSA's screener performance, screening equipment, and associated 

procedures."5 Regarding its report on air marshals, the Inspector General's unclassified 

summary did not discuss specific findings, but it did have the following unclassified title: 

F AMS' Contribution to Aviation Transportation Security is Questionable. 6 

On September 11,2017, the Govermnent Accountability Office (GAO) issued its own 

report on TSA security measures. With respect to the air marshal program's ability to deter 

attacks, the unclassified version of the report warned: 

TSA does not have information on its effectiveness in doing so, nor does it have 

data on the detetTent effect resulting from any of its other aviation security 

countermeasures. 7 

Ranking Member Cummings, then-Chairman Chaffetz, then-Subcommittee Chaitman 

John Mica, and then-Subcommittee Ranking Member Tarmny Duckworth requested that GAO 

3 House Committee on Oversight and Govemment Reform, Testimony of John Roth, Department of 

Homeland Security Inspector General, Hearing on TSA: Security Gaps, 114th Cong. (Nov. 3, 2015). 

4 ld. 

5 Department of Homeland Security, Office oflnspector General, Covert Testing ofTSA 's Screening 

Checkpoint Effectiveness (Redacted) (Sept. 27, 2017) (online at www.oig.dhs.gov/reports/2017/covert-testing-tsasscreening-checkpoint-effectiveness!oig-17-112-sep 17). 

6 Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, FAMS' Comribution to Aviation 

Transportation Security is Questionable (Redacted) (Oct. 24, 2017) (online at www.oig.dhs.gov/reports/2018/famscontribution-aviation-transportation-security-questionable-unclassified-summary). 

7 Govemment Accountability Office, Actions Needed to Sysrematical~v Evaluate Cost and Effectiveness 

Across Security Countermeasures (Sept. 11, 2017) (online at www .gao.gov/products/GA0-17-794). 

4 
48 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 11 here 32574.011

"assess TSA' s covett testing program to determine whether it is being fully utilized and 

integrated into relevant decision-making process."8 GAO's classified repmt is due later this 

year. 

According to the Office of Inspector General, 20 recommendations arising out of eight 

Inspector General reports involving TSA remain open. In one example, eight recommendations 

remain open from the Inspector General's September 2017 classified report titled, Covert Testing 

ofTSA 's Screening Checkpoint Effectiveness. 

In addition, according to GAO's "Recommendations Database," numerous 

recommendations regarding TSA security operations remain open, including recorrunendations 

from the following GAO reports: Federal Air Marshal Service: Additional Actions Needed to 

Ensure Air Marshals' Mission Readiness; Federal Air Marshal Service: Actions Needed to 

Better Incorporate Risk in Deployment Strategy; and Aviation Security: Actions Needed to 

Systematically Evaluate Cost and Effectiveness Across Security Countermeasures. 9 

Recommendation #1: 

Based on the classified and unclassified information obtained by the Committee as 

part of its three-year investigation, Ranking Member Cummings recommends that 

Congress demand sustained accountability from TSA officials to finally implement 

unfulfilled security recommendations made by the Inspector General, GAO, and 

others that have languished for years. 

Although many of these unimplemented recommendations are classified, Congress 

should launch a one-year oversight effort-including regular meetings, briefings, 

and if necessary, hearings-to ensure that TSA finally implements these 

recommendations and resolves security vulnerabilities. 

8 Letter from Chairman Jason Chaffetz, Ranking Member Elijah E. Cummings, et a!., House Committee on 

Oversight and Government Reform, to Comptroller General Gene L. Dodaro, Government Accountability Office 

(June I, 2016) (online at https://democratsoversight.house.gov/sitesldemocrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/20 16-06-

01 %20JEC%20EEC%20JLM%20TD%20to%20Dodaro-GA0%20-

%20Red%20Team%20Evaluation%20Request.pdf). 

9 Government Accountability Office, Recommendations Database (Apr. 18, 2018) (online at 

www.gao.gov/recommendationsl?q=%22Transportation+Security+Administration%22&field=agency_part_ss&list= 

I &rec _ type=all_ open#results ). 

5 
49 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 12 here 32574.012

II. REFORMS URGENTLY NEEDED FOR TSA PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 

The Committee's investigation has revealed a pattern of mismanagement at TSA and 

DHS, including arbitrary and retaliatory personnel practices. The lack of uniform civil service 

protections has led to numerous deviations from agency and department policy and from 

government-wide standards, which in tum has chilled whistleblowers, harmed morale, and 

negatively affected agency operations. 

During a transcribed interview with Committee staff on February 23, 2017, former TSA 

Deputy Administrator Mark Hatfield explained the effect of the agency's structure on TSA in 

this way: 

The stmcture that gave it the flexibility and the facility and the power to make the 

extraordinary moves it did when it was created should have evolved, and, unfortunately, 

some of them have just led to toxicity rather than a healthy agency. 10 

Former Deputy Administrator Hatfield also testified that TSA' s practice of involuntarily 

reassigning personnel to new duty stations (referred to as "directed reassignments") was used by 

at least one senior manager to "manipulate positions in the field and to both help people that 

were in favor and to punish people that were out of favor." 11 

In March 2017, Inspector General Roth testified at a Committee hearing regarding the 

potential security impacts ofTSA's arbitrary personnel practices in response to questions from 

Rep. Brenda Lawrence: 

Rep. Lawrence: Inspector Roth, do arbitrary personnel practices deter whistleblowers 

from speaking out about secmity deficiencies? 

Inspector General Roth: I believe that it's got a chilling effect. Any time there is the 

threat of some sort of improper personnel practice as a result of making a protective 

disclosm·e, for example, of a safety situation or other kind of misconduct on the part of 

the agency, that there is always that fear that there is a chilling effect that something 

will happen to that person. 

Rep. Lawrence: So ifTSA employees are reluctant to raise these deficiencies they 

observe, couldn't this put aviation security at risk? 

Inspector General Roth: Well, that's absolutely the case. 12 

10 House Committee on Oversight and Government Refonn, Interview of Mark Hatfield (Feb. 23, 20 17). 

II Jd. 

"House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Testimony of Department of Homeland 

Security Inspector General John Roth, Hearing on Transparency at TSA (Mar. 2, 2017). 

6 
50 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 13 here 32574.013

At the same hearing, fonner Special Counsel Carolyn Lerner explained how the civil 

service protections afforded under Title Vofthe U.S. Code, which currently do not fully apply to 

TSA employees, could benefit the agency: 

I think the full protections of Title V applying to TSA would be very helpful so that 

there's a-more of a feeling of fairness in employment actions so that hiring decisions 

and promotion decisions are perceived as fair. 13 

In May of this year, the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) announced that it had obtained 

a settlement with TSA on behalf of three agency employees who were given directed 

reassigmnents that required them to move from Hawaii to the U.S. mainland "after making 

disclosures related to airport operations and safety." The settlement included "compensatory 

damages of approximately $1 million" and required TSA to reassign the two individuals still 

employed by the agency back to their previous duty stations. 14 

Recommendation #2: 

Ranking Member Cummings recommends that Congress consider legislative 

proposals to strengthen civil service protections at TSA to prevent retaliation 

against whistleblowers who report security deficiencies and to ensure that 

employees are not subject to arbitrary personnel actions, which ultimately degrades 

security measures. 

13 House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Testimony of Special Counsel Carolyn Lerner, 

Hearing on Transparency at TSA (Mar. 2, 20 17). 

14 Office of Special Counsel, OSC Obtains Settlements for TSA Whistleblowers in Three Involuntary 

Reassignment Cases (May 23, 20!8) (online at https://osc.gov/Newslpr-18-30%202.pdt). 

7 
51 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 14 here 32574.014

III. REFORMS URGENTLY NEEDED TO IMPROVE TRANSPARENCY AT TSA 

During the Committee's multi-year investigation, TSA has repeatedly attempted to limit 

or prevent oversight from Congress, OSC, and the public. 

During the Committee's March 2, 2017, hearing entitled "Transparency at TSA," 

Inspector General Roth testified: 

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

information from being made public, especially with respect to a category of information 

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

problem is well documented. 15 

He added: "In addition to these inconsistent SSI designations, we have encountered 

instances in which TSA redacted information so widely known that redaction bordered on 

absurd." 16 

During the same hearing, former Special Counsel Lerner explained how TSA was 

withllolding information from OSC that limited the office's ability to enforce whistleblower 

protections. Ms. Lerner testified: 

[Y]ou need robust enforcement of the law, and the law has no meaning unless it's 

enforced, and it really hinders our ability to make findings when we're not getting full 

infonnation from the agency. 17 

Documents pertaining to the three whistleblowers with whom TSA reached the $1 

million settlement discussed above were among those withlleld by TSA until Congress enacted a 

statutory change to ensure OSC's access to all agency documents relevant to its investigations of 

whistleblower retaliation allegations. 

On March 6, 2017, the Committee requested documents related to TSA's decision to 

withllold documents from OSC. 18 On March 17, 2017, after TSA refused to produce the 

documents, the Committee issued a subpoena requiring production of the documents by March 

31,2017. 19 To date-more than eighteen months later-TSA has still not produced the full set 

15 House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Testimony ofDepartment of Homeland 

Security Inspector General John Roth, Hearing on Transparency at TSA (March 2, 2017). 

16 /d. 

17 House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Testimony of Special Counsel Carolyn Lerner, 

Hearing on 1l·ansparency at TSA (Mar. 2, 2017). 

" Letter from Chairman Jason Chaffetz and Ranking Member Elijah E. Cummings, House Committee on 

Oversight and Government Reform, to Acting Administrator Ruban Gowadia, Transportation Security 

Administration (Mar. 6, 20 17) (online at https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/20 17/03/20 17-03-6-JECto-Gowadia-TSA-Hearing-Follow-up-due-3-!0.pdf). 

19 Subpoena to Ruban Gowadia, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (Mar. 17, 2017). 

8 
52 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 15 here 32574.015

of subpoenaed documents, which include documents related to the three whistleblower cases 

TSAjust settled with OSC. 

According to both TSA and DHS, the decisions to not produce this information to OSC 

and to Congress was made by DHS, raising significant concerns regarding a more widespread 

problem with transparency at DHS. 

During a transcribed interview on December 5, 2018, the Chief Counsel ofTSA, 

Francine Kerner, infmmed Committee staff that then-DHS Acting General Counsel Joseph 

Maher instructed TSA to withhold documents from OSC. Ms. Kerner stated that "the acting 

general counsel has made the determination" to withhold documents from OSC on the basis of 

attorney-client privilege. Ms. Kerner was asked, "Did you patticipate in that decision at all?" 

She responded: "No. It's the decision of the Department."20 

On May 26, 2017, Acting General Counsel Maher confirmed Ms. Kerner's statements in 

a letter to the Committee "regarding your May 2, 2017 letter, and your March 17, 2017, 

subpoena to the Acting Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA)." He 

wrote: "The Department-not Dr. Gowadia [then-Acting TSA Administrator]-is making 

determinations on the handling of the documents." He asserted that "the Department's practice 

is not to release internal, deliberative communications between officials seeking and providing 

legal advice absent an extraordinary basis for releasing such documents."21 

In addition, on February 7, 2017, Ranking Member Counolly and Chairman Mark 

Meadows of the Subcommittee on Government Operations requested documents from DHS 

regarding its use of non-disclosure agreements. 22 To date, no documents have been produced. 

This month, the Inspector General issued a report finding that DHS' non-disclosure forms 

and settlement agreements did not always meet the requirements of the Whistleblower Protection 

Enhancement Act because they did not include a required statement to notifY employees that the 

non-disclosure agreement does not supersede certain rights, including the right to communicate 

with Congress. 23 TSA issued three of the nine nondisclosure agreement forms that the Inspector 

General found to be missing the required statements. 24 

10 House Committee on Oversight and Govemment Reform, Interview of Francine Kerner (Dec. 5, 2017). 

21 Letter from Acting General Counsel Joseph B. Maher, Department of Homeland Security, to Chairman 

Jason Chaffetz, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (May 26, 2017). 

"Letter from Chairman Mark Meadows and Ranking Member Gerald Connolly, Subcommittee on 

Government Operations, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, to Secretary John Kelly, 

Department of Homeland Security (Feb. 7, 2017) (online at https://democratsoversight.house.gov/sitesldemocrats.oversight.house.gov/files/20 17-02-

07%20Connolly%20Meadows%20to%20Kelly-DHS%20on%20NDAs.pdf). 

13 Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, DHS Non-Disclosure Forms and 

Settlement Agreements Do Not Always Include the Required Statement from the Whistleblower Protection 

Enhancement Act of 2012 (Aug, I 0, 2018) (online at www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2018-08/0IG-18-73-

Augl8.pdf). 

l4Jd. 

9 
53 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 16 here 32574.016

Recommendation #3: 

Ranking Member Cummings recommends that Congress continue oversight and 

consider legislation to significantly enhance transparency regarding whistleblower 

claims, settlement agreements, and non-disclosure agreements. 

10 
54 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 17 here 32574.017

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL -CIO 

Dr. Everett B. Kelley 

National Secretary-Treasurer 

J. David Cox, Sr. 

National President 

Jeremy A. Lannan 

NVP for Women & Fair Practices 

The Honorable Trey Gowdy 

Chairman 

House Oversight and Government 

Reform Committee 

Washington, DC 20515 

September 26, 2018 

Dear Chairman Gowdy and Ranking Member Cummings: 

The Honorable Elijah E. Cummings 

Ranking Member 

House Oversight and Government 

Reform Committee 

Washington, DC 20515 

On behalf of the over 44,000 Transportation Security Officers (TSOs) represented by the 

American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (AFGE), in light of today's hearing of 

the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (the Committee) entitled "Examining 

Misconduct and Retaliation at TSA," I am writing to provide additional information regarding 

workforce issues at the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). TSOs are not just the face 

of TSA-they are the hands and minds that implement security measures that keep the flying 

public safe. Management misconduct should not be tolerated at any federal agency, especially 

those charged with aviation security. 

We believe it is a mistake for the Committee to emphasize the rights of Transportation 

Security Administration (TSA) management with full access to appeal adverse personnel 

decisions to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) while barely addressing the workplace 

issues of 44,000 TSOs. The confluence of unfair treatment, low pay, and staffing shortages 

makes it harder for them to carry out their duties to protect our nation from a repeat of 

another attack like the terrible events of September 11, 2001. TSOs do not decide the 

procedures they execute, allocate funding, or propose unrealistic staffing levels. TSA has 

created a situation where the workers with the least authority bear the brunt of any and every 

problem created by management d-ecisions. 

This statement focuses on serious personnel issues at TSA impacting the majority ofTSA 

employees, the TSO workforce 

TSA's Separate and Unequal Personnel Systems 

Since Congress created TSA in November 2001, the agency has operated two separate 

personnel systems: TSA provides supervisors, administrative staff, and all other TSA employees 

appeal rights to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). in comparison, the "review" 

process TSA created for the TSO workforce does not Include the right to an in-person hearing 

on the action or review by an objective body outside ofTSA, all of which are available through 

the MSPB. In a January 2018 report, the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General 

.. ., .. 80 F Street, N.W, Washington DC 20001 • 202.737.8700 ·Fax 202 639 6490 • www.afge org 
55 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 18 here 32574.018

found that TSA senior leadership operated "a shadow disciplinary process for senior 

management," deviating from and Interfering with TSA's standard disciplinary practice to 

reduce a penalty against a favored senior management employee. TSOs face discipline that Is 

swift and severe without the ability to testify and challenge witnesses. The TSO workforce Is 

not the beneficiary of TSA management assistance. To the contrary, AFGE currently Is litigating 

19 cases of retaliation against TSOs who filed discrimination complaints against the agency. 

Over 44,000 TSA employees are denied the protections of the Fair labor Standards Act and the 

Back Pay Act simply because their job classification Is that of Transportation Security Officer 

and TSA has blocked the application of the law to them. Denial of common-sense statutory 

workplace rights and protections was unnecessary to stand up TSA in 2001, and It Is wrong to 

continue this unfair system almost 17 years later. 

Misconduct, retaliation, and obstruction at TSA runs deep within the organization and Is 

a direct result of the lack ofaccountablllty and transparency within TSA's personnel systems. 

The nation's security Is enhanced when the workers who contribute to our protection have a 

personnel system that Is fair, transparent, and consistent. For this reason, AFGE strongly 

supports H.R. 2309, the Rights for Transportation Security Officers Act, introduced by 

Representatives Bennie Thompson (D-MS) and Nita Lowey (D-NY). The Rights for 

Transportation Security Officers Act would apply title 5 of the U.S. Code that provides 

workplace rights and protections to the entire TSA workforce in the same manner as other 

security employees at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We strongly urge the 

Committee to hold a hearing on H.R. 2309 and favorably report out the bill. This Is the most 

effective action to advance TSA's mission of aviation and transportation security. 

High Rates of Attrition of the ISO Workforce 

The TSO attrition rate far surpasses attrition rates ofthe entire Federal Government 

workforce. A September 19, 2018 Bloomberg BNA article entitled Airport Screeners Often Take 

Off Shortly After Arrival reported that a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for 

Information regarding screener employment at 10 large airports found turnover rates ranging 

"from 30 percent to more than 80 percent" between 2012 and 2016. TSA's response to AFGE's 

own FOIA request showed between 2007 and July 2018 roughly the entire agency was replaced 

due to attrition. During this time 45,576 TSOs resigned from the agency. These numbers are a 

strong Indication that TSA does not have a misconduct problem. TSA has a quitting problem. 

These high attrition rates do not occur In other DHS components where the rank and file 

workforce are afforded workplace rights and protections and a transparent pay system under 

title 5 of the U.S. Code. 

TSA Should Adequately Staff Checkpoint and Baggage Sqeen!ng 

In response to long checkpoint lines during the spring and summer of 2016, former DHS 

Secretary Jeh Johnson redirected $34 million in reprogrammed funds to TSA. Most of this 

funding was used by TSA for overtime that was forced on Its existing TSA Officer workforce, and 

for TSOs, a repeated pattern. TSA's failure to adequately staff checkpoint and baggage 

{00382704.DOCX ~} 
56 

Æ 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 19 here 32574.019

screening areas leads to overworked officers and less security for the flying public. TSOs at 

some airports are subject to ongoing mandatory overtime due to short staffing, while other full 

time TSOs are working split shifts between two airports because of shortages. AFGE Is 

especially concerned that female TSOs continue to face denial of shift or line bids or delayed 

breaks due to chronic underrepresentatlon of women among the TSO ranks. All2 million 

passengers departing on flights from U.S. airports daily must be screened by a person, not by 

canines or solely by use of technology. Staffing Issues can be resolved by full funding to cover 

the cost of hiring the full time TSOs necessary to screen passengers and addressing TSA's 

retention issues by providing workplace rights and protections and fair pay. 

TSO Pay Is Too Low to Build the Workforce 

The TSO workforce is underpaid. TSA Invented its own pay band system lacking the 

stability and transparency of the General Schedule pay system of compensation used by most 

Federal agencies. In 2017, the average TSO pay Increase was $244, or about $9.38 a paycheck. 

TSOs are largely clustered In theE pay band by TSA, the third lowest at the agency, and TSA 

recently eliminated the ability ofTSA Officers to achieve the higher G pay band, a difference of 

thousands of dollars. TSA has promoted a Career Progression program, but there is no 

assurance of being promoted to a vacant, available position with higher wages for TSOs who 

complete training and certification requirements for various career paths. TSOs face constant 

training and changing procedures and are required to pass more certifications than armed 

federal law enforcement officers. The screening workforce deserves a pay system that is fair 

and adequately reflects their training, complexities of tasks, and seniority. 

With the assistance of Congressional oversight, AFGE has successfully worked with 

countless agencies to accomplish the goal of representing our members and helping the Federal 

government function at the highest level for the U.S. public. There Is no good reason why our 

union cannot have the same relationship with TSA. Thank you for the opportunity to share 

AFGE's views on this Important issue. 

Sincerely, 

#kThomas S. Kahn 

Oirector, Legislative Affairs 

{00382704.000<.}