[Senate Hearing 119-105]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 119-105
NOMINATION OF HON. SEAN CAIRNCROSS,
ROBERT LAW, JAMES PERCIVAL, KEVIN RHODES,
AND JAMES WOODRUFF II
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
NOMINATION OF HON. SEAN CAIRNCROSS TO BE NATIONAL CYBER
DIRECTOR, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT; ROBERT LAW
TO BE UNDER SECRETARY FOR STRATEGY, POLICY, AND PLANS,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; JAMES PERCIVIAL TO
BE GENERAL COUNSEL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY;
KEVIN RHODES TO BE ADMINISTRATOR FOR FEDERAL PROCUREMENT
POLICY, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET; AND
JAMES WOODRUFF II TO BE A MEMBER, MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD
__________
JUNE 5, 2025
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
60-831 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
RAND PAUL, Kentucky, Chairman
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire
RICK SCOTT, Florida RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri JOHN FETTERMAN, Pennsylvania
BERNIE MORENO, Ohio ANDY KIM, New Jersey
JONI ERNST, Iowa RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona
TIM SCOTT, South Carolina ELISSA SLOTKIN, Michigan
William E. Henderson III, Staff Director
Christina N. Salazar, Chief Counsel
Andrew J. Hopkins, Counsel
David M. Weinberg, Minority Staff Director
Christopher J. Mulkins, Minority Director of Homeland Security
Claudine J. Brenner, Minority Senior Counsel
Nomi Rosen, Minority Research Assistant
Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk
Ashley A. Gonzalez, Records Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statements:
Page
Senator Paul................................................. 1
Senator Moreno............................................... 2
Senator Peters............................................... 4
Senator Moody................................................ 6
Senator Hassan............................................... 8
Senator Kim.................................................. 10
Senator Slotkin.............................................. 12
Senator Lankford............................................. 14
Senator Blumenthal........................................... 16
Senator Fetterman............................................ 18
Senator Hawley............................................... 19
Prepared statements:
Senator Peters............................................... 25
WITNESSES
THURSDAY, JUNE 5, 2025
The Hon. Sean Cairncross to be National Cyber Director, Executive
Office of the President
Prepared statement........................................... 27
Biographical and professional information.................... 29
Letter from U.S. Office of Government Ethics................. 47
Responses to pre-hearing questions........................... 52
Responses to post-hearing questions.......................... 62
Letters of support........................................... 71
Robert Law to be Under Secretary for Strategy, Policy, and Plans,
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Prepared statement........................................... 79
Biographical and professional information.................... 82
Letter from U.S. Office of Government Ethics................. 100
Responses to pre-hearing questions........................... 104
Responses to post-hearing questions.......................... 120
Letter of support............................................ 134
Kevin Rhodes to be Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy,
Office of Management and Budget
Prepared statement........................................... 136
Biographical and professional information.................... 139
Letter from U.S. Office of Government Ethics................. 156
Responses to pre-hearing questions........................... 160
Responses to post-hearing questions.......................... 172
James Woodruff II to be a Member, Merit Systems Protection Board
Prepared statement........................................... 185
Biographical and professional information.................... 186
Letter from U.S. Office of Government Ethics................. 206
Responses to pre-hearing questions........................... 209
Responses to post-hearing questions.......................... 220
James Percival to be General Counsel, U.S. Department of Homeland
Security;
Prepared statement........................................... 234
Biographical and professional information.................... 236
Letter from U.S. Office of Government Ethics................. 251
Responses to pre-hearing questions........................... 254
Responses to post-hearing questions.......................... 269
NOMINATION OF HON. SEAN CAIRNCROSS,
ROBERT LAW, JAMES PERCIVAL,
KEVIN RHODES, AND JAMES WOODRUFF II
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 5, 2025
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9.30 a.m., in
room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Rand Paul,
Chair of the Committee, presiding.
Present. Senators Paul [presiding], Lankford, Scott,
Hawley, Moreno, Ernst, Moody, Peters, Hassan, Blumenthal,
Fetterman, Kim, and Slotkin.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PAUL
Chairman Paul. The Committee will consider today five
nominations.
Sean Cairncross is nominated to be Director of the Office
of National Cyber Director (ONCD). Mr. Cairncross previously
served as Deputy Assistant President in the first Trump
administration and as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of
Millennium Challenge Corporation. He has spent over two decades
in the legal and compliance field.
Robert Law is nominated to be Under Secretary for Strategy,
Policy, and Plans at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Mr. Law currently serves as senior counselor to the Secretary
of Homeland Security. He previously served as a senior policy
role in the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
during the first Trump administration.
Kevin Rhodes is nominated to be Administrator of the Office
of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) at the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). Mr. Rhodes currently serves as a
senior advisor at the Office of Management and Budget. Prior to
that, he served over two decades on active duty in the U.S. Air
Force (USAF).
James Woodruff is nominated to be a member of Merit Systems
Protection Board (MSPB). Mr. Woodruff currently works at the
Board of Veterans Appeals while continuing his decades long
military career as a major in the Air Force Reserves.
Last but not least, James Percival is nominated to be
General Counsel (GC) for the Department of Homeland Security.
Mr. Percival currently serves as a senior counselor to the
Secretary for Homeland Security. He served in various positions
in both State and Federal Government, including as chief of
staff for our colleague, Senator Moody during her time as
Attorney General (AG) of Florida.
The witnesses' written statements have been submitted for
the record, and I ask unanimous consent (UC) to submit letters
of support\1\ received for the nominees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The letters of support appears in the Appendix on page 71 and
134.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the interest of time, I will forego my opening remarks,
but we will go ahead and swear in the witnesses to beginning.
If you will each rise and raise your right hand. Do you swear
the testimony you will give before this Committee will be the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you
God?
[Witnesses answer in the affirmative.]
You may be seated. We will now proceed to a round of
questions and we will start with Senator Moreno.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MORENO
Senator Moreno. I am not used to going first when you are
in the kids' table Mr. Chair, but I appreciate that very much.
First of all, thank you all of you for your willingness to
serve and for being here today. I will start with you, Mr.
Percival.
There's a community in Ohio, a county, a great county, it's
called Wood County. The county seat is Bowling Green. There was
a 24-year-old Venezuelan national who, thanks to Joe Biden's
open border policies, made it across the U.S. Mexico border,
was paroled in the United States, somehow managed to get to
rural Ohio, and then got enrolled in high school, and posed as
a 16-year-old high school student, even though he was 24 years
old, allegedly was a pedophile and now is in the Wood County
jail awaiting extradition.
How does something like that happen and what is the plan to
make certain to communities in Ohio that something like that
could never happen again?
Mr. Percival. Thank you, Senator, for the question. I mean,
the way that happened is that the last administration broke the
law. We actually filed a lawsuit against the Biden
administration for the abuse of parole at the border, and we
were able to eventually stop that. But it sounds like we did
not do it in time in that particular circumstance, and I am
very sorry for that.
Senator Moreno. No, that's certainly not something that
that had to do with Trump Administration. That was all as a
result of Biden's policies. But if you could explain, because
there's a lot of nonsense that is said in the media and from
maybe sometimes on the other side of the aisle that we are
anti-immigrant. I am an immigrant. I don't feel that the
administration's targeting me. I followed the legal process to
come here.
But imagine what you would feel like if you are a parent
and your teenage daughter is enrolled in high school with a 24-
year-old foreign national criminal alien. If you could just go
into detail about what are we doing to find out how these
things happen? Because there has to be accountability. A 24-
year-old Venezuelan does not make it to Wood County, Ohio
without a lot of help, a lot of assistance.
Who are the non-governmental organization's (NGO's)
involved? Who housed them, who provided passage for them? How
does this person even enter our country and get to that place?
Mr. Percival. Yes, Senator. If confirmed, something I would
definitely work on is looking at sort of start to finish how we
get to a situation like that. So we have the abuse of the legal
processes, like you talked about, abuse of parole. We are
hopeful that the Laken Riley Act will help cleanup a lot of
that.
But you are absolutely right about NGO's who are basically
running a human trafficking scheme, many of them. And it's
something that, if confirmed, I would be happy to look into for
you because I agree.
Senator Moreno. Do I have your commitment that we will
actually hold these organizations accountable? Clearly, the
voters held Joe Biden accountable and Kamala Harris accountable
by sending them home and sending them packing. Thank God. But I
hope that we hold the organizations that facilitated the
policies of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris accountable.
Mr. Percival. Senator, yes, I agree that they need to be
held accountable.
Senator Moreno. Sure. Mr. Rhodes shifting to you and
shifting to a totally different conversation, as you know, we
talked about this when you were in my office. Again, thank you
for your willingness to serve. It's very appreciated.
There's a law on the books, so this is not theoretical,
this is not new legislation. This is the current law of the
land, is that the departments within our government must buy
products from the United States of America using U.S. taxpayer
dollars. That's common sense. That law exists.
But during the four years of the Biden Administration,
specifically on a topic that matters to Ohio companies, nitrile
gloves, the ones that we see, you see at the U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) when you go there as a veteran--thank you
for your service, by the way. When we see at the airport, we
see Transportation Security Administration (TSA) agents putting
on nitrile gloves, the Biden administration chose to buy those
gloves from China in violation of U.S. law.
Do I have your commitment that in the procurement process,
that you will make certain that every single Federal agency
follows the law and buys products from American companies?
Mr. Rhodes. Senator, thank you for the question. I
absolutely am committed to Buy America Act. As a veteran, when
I found out that nitrile gloves that the VA uses when I go and
get my medical care are from China, it's appalling and quite
frankly, frustrating. So as long as we can find a vendor or the
product made in America, we should commit to that. You do have
my commitment. Thank you.
Senator Moreno. I appreciate it. Again, thank you for your
service, and thank you to all of you, especially the three of
you I did not ask questions of. Thank you for your willingness
to serve. One of the things I have noticed in my five months
here is the administration has attracted incredible talent,
people like all of you that are willing to serve. That's what
gives me great hope for the next four years that we are going
to get this country back on track. With that, Mr. Chair, I know
you are very fastidious on time, and I am up. My time is up.
Chairman Paul. Very good. Perfect. Senator Peters will give
a brief opening statement, and then we will go directly into
his questions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETERS\1\
Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for your indulgence
on that.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Senator Peters appears in the
Appendix on page 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today, we are considering nominees for five high level
positions. All of these positions are critical for the American
people. While I certainly want to thank the nominees for being
here today, this rushed hearing limits our ability as Senators
to fulfill our constitutional duty of advice and consent. The
nominations process should provide us ample opportunity to do
our due diligence and ensure these nominees are fit to
effectively carry out the duties of these very important
offices.
I am concerned this Committee's nomination process is
becoming a rubber stamp, a way to check the box and push
nominees to the Senate floor without sufficient oversight. We
are straying even further from our traditional open and public
process by not having the nominees give opening statements. By
restricting the amount of time for Members to actually ask
questions from each of you.
This not only robs Members of the tools to thoroughly
evaluate a nominee's qualifications, it also limits
transparency for the public. The American people deserve to
know whether the President's nominees are up to the task for
these very serious roles. While this Committee neglects to hold
oversight hearings, the administration is dismantling key
government functions under the guise of restructuring. Instead
of targeting waste, fraud, and abuse, the Trump administration
is indiscriminately firing personnel and canceling funding
access across the government, disempowering our agencies, and
making them and the American people more vulnerable to national
security threats.
By firing the watchdogs who oversee our government and make
sure that it is accountable to the public, the administration
is removing avenues to address any harm or wrongdoing. These
actions will not make the Federal Government more efficient and
accountable, they will prevent it from effectively serving and
protecting the American people. This Committee has a
responsibility to conduct thorough oversight to ensure that not
only the most qualified nominees assume leadership positions.
This process before us today undermines our duty as Senators.
To the nominees, if confirmed, each of you will be in
positions of great influence to deliver critical services to
the American people. I sincerely hope that you will use your
influence to make our government more effective and not tear it
apart. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for that opportunity.
My first question is to Mr. Cairncross. Welcome to the
Committee here today, and congratulations on your nomination. I
first want to assess how you would respond to certain
situations. If confirmed, how would you coordinate an
integrated Federal response to a serious zero-day vulnerability
being actively used by a foreign adversary to attack Federal
agency networks? What would your initial actions be?
Mr. Cairncross. Sure. Thank you for the question, Senator.
Thank you, Chair Paul, and to the Members of the Committee for
holding the hearing. Senator, on a zero-day discovery, which is
a threat that was to the network or a system that was
previously unknown, I think it would be vital to work with the
interagency, with the National Security Council (NSC), with
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) to
determine what the impact was, what the vulnerability is, how
quickly it can be remediated and patched, to communicate with
the private sector to make sure that we have a good working
information flow, and then on the back end to determine what
that response should be.
It's part of that layered cyber defense of denying our
enemies and adversaries benefits and imposing costs on them for
their behavior.
Senator Peters. If confirmed, how would you coordinate a
Federal strategy to secure our agencies against supply chain
cyberattacks, other than sharing information on the tech, which
obviously is important, how would you advise the President?
Mr. Cairncross. Sure. The first thing, Senator, and a goal
of mine is to make sure that this office sits at the place that
this Committee, and I believe Congress intended in the statute,
and that is to lead cyber policy coordination across the
Federal Government. And so in doing that, working with our
interagency partners is vital.
We have been empowered to work with OMB to ensure that
budget alignment among the interagency aligns with
administration policy. I think that those tools have to be
leveraged and the relationships between us and the interagency
it's making sure that it is monitored and enforced.
Senator Peters. Mr. Cairncross, the two national cyber
directors before you had extensive experience in cybersecurity.
You have other good experiences but cybersecurity is not part
of that experience. My question is, how are you going to make
up for these gaps in the experience that you currently have?
Mr. Cairncross. Sure, Senator. It's true I do not have a
technical background in cyber, but in my roles running private
organizations and national party committees, I have been on the
user side of this. I have had to deal with foreign nation
attacks on our systems. We have worked with the Federal Bureau
of Investigations (FBI) and the intelligence community (IC) to
learn about them, to stop them, and to monitor those attacks.
Like I said, on the user side, I have that experience.
On the management side I have run thousands of people and
billions of dollars in funds and in doing those jobs, I
surround myself with smart, people make sure that the right
people are in the right place to do the jobs, and take their
advice.
Senator Peters. Another question for you. Got a lot of
questions for you. We have a lot of other folks here, but I
want to make sure I get this out. The Cybersecurity Information
Sharing Act of 2015 is a critical law, as you know, provides
liability protections for businesses that share threat
information with the Federal Government at each other.
Absolutely critical that that sharing occurs. These authorities
play a key role in coordinating public private responses to
cyber incidents including the recent attacks that we saw, Volt
and Salt Typhoon attacks.
But unfortunately, CISA 2015 is set to expire this
September. That has a lot of folks very worried that that
protection's going to go away, and it's going to hamper our
ability to provide the cybersecurity protection that we need
for our Nation. My question for you, sir, is if confirmed, do
you commit to working with me to extend CISA 2015 before it
expires in September?
Mr. Cairncross. I do, Senator. Yes.
Senator Peters. Very good. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Paul. Think I would just like to set the record
straight. The accusation's been made that we are not doing a
thorough vetting or hearing today. All the nominees have
submitted statements for the record, they can be read. There
will be a week time to read that. They have all been through an
ethics review. They have all been through an FBI review. They
have also sat through one hour of questioning with minority
staff. There will be a one to two hour hearing today where
questions can be asked. They have also submitted and answered
written questions. So, the norms for reviewing the candidates
are as they always have been. Senator Moody.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MOODY
Senator Moody. We are both freshmen and our names start
with M. So, honest mistake. Mr. Chair, thank you so much. Thank
you to all of our nominees for stepping up to take this on. I
echo the comments. I have never seen an administration attract
so much talent from outside the public sector to be willing to
give up time with their families, pecuniary benefits, all of
the things that come along with being in a private industry to
come and work for the government.
It has been inspirational to me as someone who has
dedicated a lot of my life and indeed left a private practice
to begin a life of public service. I think all of the families
that supported them in doing that. I know you have a lot of
your family here with you today. In fact, I will tell you, I
sat down with two of my top folks, one of which is up for
nomination today, Jimmy Percival, when they were considering
coming up here to serve in this administration and what that
would mean, a move leaving significant others, time away, that
really important time that you might not get back with family.
I said to them, when this country was founded, many people
gave up a lot for the prospect of living as a free people in a
civilized society. They were away from their families, many
gave up their lives. We can give up time to come and serve this
administration and set this country on the right course so that
we can continue the prosperity and success of the United States
of America.
Because two of my top people decided to do that, I have
been so proud of them. So, congratulations. I am excited to
introduce as part of my remarks, Jimmy Percival, who I can
think of no better candidate to be the General Counsel of the
Department of Homeland Security. Let me explain why. By the
way, I forgot to say when making that decision to come up and
serve, Jimmy has six kids at home, a wife, Emily, who I believe
might be a saint, and is here today with all six kids
supporting him. So thank you so much.
When I took on the role as AG, we fought the last
administration tooth and nail as they abandoned the law and
opened up our Southern border and let in a historic amount of
unvetted people into this country. The estimates are anywhere
from 11 million to 20 million. If you take the most
conservative number, 11 million, that's more than the
population of 42 States.
When we first saw this administration stop detaining people
that were committing crimes, serious felony crimes, and
deporting them and rather releasing them back into the
communities, we were the first to file suit on that. When we
saw that administration start enrolling people into the
interior in violation of law, we were one of the first to sue
on that. When we saw the administration start creating programs
rooted nowhere in law by Congress, we sued on that.
When we saw the Federal prisons stop deporting people that
were arrested internationally and brought here merely because
they were drug traffickers, no connection to the United States
of America, brought here only because they were drug
traffickers released from prison and put in our communities in
the middle of an opioid epidemic.
When we saw these insane policies completely in violation
of the law, the tip of the spear in that fight, when we took
the Biden Administration to court and won time after time, was
Jimmy Percival and our team. When we uncovered the plan when
the border was overrun, just step back and let everyone come
in. When we uncovered that secret memo, Jimmy Percival got that
done. As we course correct and try and save this nation and our
communities and make sure that they are safe again, I can think
of no better person than the person that fought that fight
against the lawless actions of the last administration to come
in and undo the damage.
Because we are going to have to use laws that we have not
used before because we have never faced a President that opened
up our borders and let everyone in. I can think of no better
person to guide a team in the fight in courts and get that done
than Jimmy Percival. In fact, when the Senator of Michigan said
and asked a question, ``Will you be able to make sure our
government more effective and not tear it apart? ''
You can imagine my response after watching our security and
our borders and our immigration system torn apart over the last
four years. The question is, can you make sure we rebuild it? I
am so proud of this President who has in just three months
brought down the numbers coming over our border, and vetted and
secured the border. But now we have to make sure we are getting
those that are here that will do damage to our citizens and our
communities and the security of this nation as we catch people
trying to import dangerous substances, as we catch people here
on Visas, stealing information, taking pictures of our military
bases.
We need people to get people out that are going to do the
damage, and we have to do it quickly, and we have to do it
effectively. Jimmy Percival, what is your plan to do that?
Mr. Percival. Senator Moody, I think I know when to quit
when I am ahead. But obviously everything you said is very
important. I know it's very important to the President and the
Secretary. If confirmed, I will work harder than anyone in this
administration to make that happen.
Senator Moody. And do I have your commitment to supporting
any action and legislation that I have just filed to approve
expedited removal for anyone associated with a gang or criminal
activity?
Mr. Percival. Senator, I will work with you on that. I
think those are good ideas.
Senator Moody. Thank you.
Chairman Paul. Senator Hassan.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HASSAN
Senator Hassan. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and Ranking Member
Peters. Good morning to all of the nominees. Congratulations to
you all for your nominations, and congratulations to your
families too, because this is a family effort, I know. We are
all grateful for your interest in serving. I am going to start
with a question for all of you. I would really ask you to
restrict your answer to a simple sentence.
If you are directed by the President to take an action that
would violate the law, would you follow the President's
directive or follow the law? Mr. Cairncross?
Mr. Cairncross. Senator, thank you for the question. I do
not believe that that would ever happen. But to take your
question, I would be faithful to the law.
Senator Hassan. Thank you. Mr. Law.
Mr. Law. Thank you for the question, Senator. I am
confident that President Trump would not ask me to violate the
law, and if confirmed, I will uphold the law.
Senator Hassan. Thank you. Mr. Percival.
Mr. Percival. Senator, the last two answers were perfect. I
would give the same answer.
Senator Hassan. Thank you. Mr. Rhodes.
Mr. Rhodes. Senator, I agree with my colleagues.
Senator Hassan. Thank you.
Mr. Woodruff. Senator, I agree with what's already been
said.
Senator Hassan. I appreciate all of you saying you will
follow the law. I will just note for the record that I think it
is unrealistic to rule out the possibility that this President
of the United States would give a directive that violates the
law.
Now, Mr. Percival, last month, the White House Deputy Chief
of Staff said that President Trump's administration is actively
looking at suspending habeas corpus. Two weeks ago, I asked
Secretary Noem about this, and today I would like to ask you
about this as well, since you are obviously nominated to be the
general counsel of the Department of Homeland Security.
Mr. Percival, let's just start with, what is habeas corpus?
Mr. Percival. Thank you, Senator. Habeas corpus is a Latin
phrase that means you shall have the body.
Senator Hassan. What is the foundational right that habeas
corpus represents in our constitutional democracy?
Mr. Percival. I guess there's a number of different
concepts. There's the writ of habeas corpus, which is a
judicial review mechanism. There's what we call the suspension
clause, which is about suspending the writ of habeas corpus.
Then there are several implications of that for the work that
DHS is doing, such as the Alien Enemies Act.
Senator Hassan. I appreciate you and I could do a law
school debate about this. Let's just get to the core
foundational principle here and why it's so important. It is
the bedrock principle in our country that prevents the
government from imprisoning someone without any justification
or review. It's a key right that makes America a free society
unlike North Korea or Iran. It's important that we all as
Americans, understand, appreciate, and defend this principle.
One of the concerns I have you just gave me an answer that
circled around that essential piece of our constitutional
democracy. Every American and every person in this country has
a right if they are detained, to demand that the government
just come and say why they are detaining them and do it in
public, and give people that foundational entry to due process.
Since many of us have concerns about this administration's
commitment to due process, I think it's really important that
we understand that foundational, right. Do you agree that this
is a foundational principle, that the government must bring a
person before a court and provide a reason for that person's
detention? Do you agree that it's critical that we have this
right in order to be a free society?
Mr. Percival. I agree that the Constitution protects the
availability of that writ except in enumerated circumstances in
the Constitution.
Senator Hassan. Do you think it's an important thing for a
free society?
Mr. Percival. Yes.
Senator Hassan. Do you believe we should be a free society?
Mr. Percival. I believe strongly in the ideals of the
founders, and they included that in the Constitution.
Senator Hassan. You are also going to take an oath to the
Constitution of the United States, right?
Mr. Percival. Yes, if confirmed, yes, ma'am.
Senator Hassan. If a court says that the Department of
Homeland Security must bring a person in the government's
custody before a court, will you advise Secretary Noem to
follow that order?
Mr. Percival. Thank you, Senator. The policy of this
administration is to follow court orders, and if confirmed, I
would act consistent with that policy.
Senator Hassan. Thank you. Mr. Cairncross, I just want to
follow up on the line of questioning that Ranking Member Peters
started. He asked you about the reauthorization of the
Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015. I would also
love to work with you and the administration on making sure we
get that reauthorized.
Another law that we also talked about when we met that
expires on the exact same day, is the State and Local
Cybersecurity Grant Program. We have talked about the
importance of making sure that the Federal Government and the
private sector, which controls so much critical infrastructure
works together on cybersecurity. But the other piece of that
puzzle is to make sure that State and local governments have
the tools they need to work effectively with the Federal
Government and the private sector.
Would you commit to working with us to reauthorize the
State and local cybersecurity grant program as well?
Mr. Cairncross. Senator, I think there's no more important
area, or it is extremely important the relationship between the
State and Federal Government on this attack. None of you are
free of those attacks in your States, as you know. Yes, I look
forward to working with you on that issue.
Senator Hassan. It's not just that we are vulnerable to
attack. It's that most State and local governments simply do
not have the budget or the tools, and sometimes cannot hire the
experts given the shortage of experts in this field around the
country to effectively guard against these attacks. It is
really important that these grants help them do that. Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Paul. Thank you. I would just like to chime in on
the heels of Senator Hassan talking about habeas corpus, that
while I am a Republican, while I am generally supportive of the
administration, the policy, and think Secretary Noem's done a
great job, if there's an attempt to suspend habeas corpus, even
though it's in the Constitution, you will find not only a
wholehearted opposition to it, you will find full throated
opposition to it from me.
Let us hope that that was an idle comment that is not
repeated, and comments like that are very dangerous. I hope the
person who issued that will think twice before saying things
like that again. Senator Kim.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR KIM
Senator Kim. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Law, I would like to
start with you. We are seeing reports that the acting Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) director was unaware that
there was a hurricane season, that I have also seen reports
that the hurricane plan was not completed prior to the start of
hurricane season. I just wanted to ask you, does that seem
acceptable to you?
Mr. Law. Thank you for the question, Senator. I am not
familiar with those reports, but what I can tell you is from my
understanding as senior counselor to the secretary, they are
taking a very critical look at FEMA because it has failed to
operate the way it should. They are definitely focused on that.
Senator Kim. I guess I would just like to restate this. Do
you think that we should have a FEMA director that understands
when hurricane season begins?
Mr. Law. I believe that the Secretary has confidence in the
current leadership of FEMA.
Senator Kim. Do you know when hurricane season starts and
ends?
Mr. Law. We are currently in hurricane season.
Senator Kim. And when does it end?
Mr. Law. I believe it ends sometime in September or
October.
Senator Kim. It ends at the end of November. I just raise
this because there was no mention of anything about natural
disasters in your opening statement, about the importance that
Homeland Security plays with this, and you are talking about
FEMA. Are you in support of abolishing FEMA? Do you support
some of the statements that the President has made in that
direction?
Mr. Law. Thank you for the question, Senator. I think the
President and the Secretary have been abundantly clear that
FEMA in its current form is not working. I am up for a policy
position, not an operational role in FEMA. But to the extent
that there are policies relevant to FEMA, I, if confirmed,
would be happy to work with you on those.
Senator Kim. I mean, you would be in charge of strategy,
policy, and plans. I think having a hurricane plan is very
important. I think having a plan on how to address natural
disasters is very important. I guess I want to ask you, do you
see a role for FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security to
be a focal point when it comes to addressing natural disasters
around the country, or do you think that should be at the State
level?
Mr. Law. Thank you for the question, Senator. I think
there's always been a role for the State and locals to be the
lead when it comes to natural disasters, and that FEMA plays an
important supporting role. But FEMA has failed to deliver. It's
my understanding that there are still outstanding claims going
all the way back to Hurricane Katrina, and that's just
unacceptable.
Senator Kim. I do not discount the fact that there are
reforms to be made and problems that exist. But I want to just
redirect you to the primary mission stated in the founding
document of Homeland Security, which says directly that DHS is
acting as a focal point regarding natural and manmade crises
and emergency planning. I just say that because I do not see
this administration taking that aspect of responding to natural
disasters as centrally and important and critically as it
should be.
I just want to hit that home with you, because if you are
confirmed, I hope that you can commit to working with me and
working with this Committee to making sure that we are
addressing those issues. Can you do that?
Mr. Law. Thank you for the question, Senator. If confirmed,
of course, I would be happy to work with you on the crisis
management and emergency response efforts of the Department of
Homeland Security.
Senator Kim. Mr. Cairncross, I wanted to just turn to you,
how are we doing as a nation when it comes to cybersecurity?
How would you kind of rate us in terms of our preparedness?
Mr. Cairncross. Senator, what I think is these attacks are
increasing, they are becoming more sophisticated, and they are
scaling up. I believe that this office was intended by the
statute to help coordinate and focus that policy.
Senator Kim. So, you are saying that the threats are
increasing and they are scaling up. Is that right?
Mr. Cairncross. Correct.
Senator Kim. Then why is it that the Trump administration
is trying to decrease the staffing and the budget when it comes
to an incredibly important office like CISA?
Mr. Cairncross. Senator, what I think is this is a
complicated vector, but at its core, this is a human nature
issue. Our enemies do not see a cost in engaging in this
behavior. They impose strategic dilemmas on us, and they have
now for a long period of time, it's time that we impose those
dilemmas on them.
Senator Kim. Yes, I agree with that, but I feel like,
important part of that is to have the staff necessary. I mean,
you are talking about a challenging vector here. I am having a
hard time understanding if threats of cybersecurity are
increasing, as you said, and scaling up, why is our investment
in it going down?
Mr. Cairncross. Senator, I think a first management
principle for me is that form follows function. I know with
regards to this office, if I am to be confirmed, I am going to
use that principle to make sure that the function we are
serving, which is to defend the United States from these
attacks, to keep our critical infrastructure safe, to keep our
citizens safe--because as we know, these criminals and enemies
target the most vulnerable Americans--that the form that we
take is the most efficient, effective way to service that
mission.
Senator Kim. I yield back.
Chairman Paul. Senator Slotkin.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SLOTKIN
Senator Slotkin. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for
your intervention after Senator Hassan. Welcome to all of you.
I did a confirmation hearing like this many moons ago, a group
one, and I was the only one who got questions. For those of you
who are getting less questions, you are getting off really
easy. And you should thank your fellow peers here on the dais
afterwards.
Let me start on cybersecurity. As a former Central
Intelligence Administration (CIA) officer I feel like we all
know that cyberattacks are increasing in your own words.
Attacks are increasing, they are becoming more sophisticated,
they are becoming more prevalent. Then with the use of
artificial intelligence (AI), they are becoming much more
smart, much more capable. But if you are confirmed, you will
oversee the single biggest cut in cybersecurity dollars, a $495
million cut to cybersecurity.
I know that the President has it out for certain members of
the cybersecurity community of his own administration from the
first time. But the truth is, you are cutting programs that
help our State and locals, like the State of Michigan actually
defend against these things, our infrastructure. It's the
really my power companies who have come to me and said, we used
to get quarterly updates from CISA and get a sense of like the
threat picture across the country. Now, we do not have that. We
feel vulnerable.
I really feel like the United States is in a situation with
cyber, the way we were with terrorism before September 11, 2001
(9/11). Terrorism attacks were happening. Some people watched
them, but they really did not enter in a huge way, the American
consciousness until we had a spectacular attack. I am deeply
worried that we are going to have a spectacular cyberattack,
and you are going to be left holding the bag.
I mean, you are here. They pulled the nomination of the
other guy on cyber from this panel. You are the head guy. Help
me understand honestly, in a way that speaks to the average
person who's like a principal of a K through 12 school whose
kids' data is being ransomed. How can you justify a nearly $500
million cut on cybersecurity given what you yourself just said?
Mr. Cairncross. Senator, I think to your point, the vast
majority of cyber defense in this country falls on the private
sector. One of the key elements that I see----
Senator Slotkin. Not my K through 12 schools, not my public
hospitals, not the utilities.
Mr. Cairncross. And State and local territorial and tribal
are extremely important as we were chatting about earlier.
Senator Slotkin. That's what affects the average American,
right? That's what they all know. We have a cyberattack once
every 39 seconds in America. Everyone in this room has had
someone try to get their data.
Mr. Cairncross. Senator, the University of Michigan, the
healthcare system schools in your State alone, I mean, the
members of this panel have had tens of millions, hundreds of
millions, Florida, I think is over a billion dollars.
Senator Slotkin. Right. So, explain the cut. Just be honest
about it. You cannot say you care about an increasing and more
sophisticated set of attacks while cutting the very people who
help defend against those attacks. I want to do offensive
cyber. I want to make them feel pain for the Russians and the
Chinese that are launching these attacks. I am there with you.
I will add money there, but you cannot add by subtracting.
I think we just have to own that, that the petty desires of
the President are going to leave us more vulnerable. You are
going to be the guy--if we have our cyber 9/11, you are going
to be the guy who's sitting there saying, ``Oh, holy crap. We
just cut all this money. I just had all the power go out on the
eastern seaboard. Or the Chinese stole a whole bunch of our
personal data from every hospital and every school.'' Let us
not pretend that a cut actually helps defend against what you
agree is an increasing set of attacks.
I just want to ask, in my short time, I will leave you
alone, I know, I will move to the next guy. Mr. Percival you
are going to be the general counsel of the Department of
Homeland Security. The Supreme Court of the United States
currently has a court order, multiple court orders with the
Department of Homeland Security. John Roberts, the biggest guy
in the land we have on the Supreme Court has issued those court
orders, and DHS is not complying.
If you want this job as general counsel, will you comply
with the court orders from the Supreme Court of the United
States?
Mr. Percival. Thank you, Senator. I have some awareness of
that situation in my role as senior counselor. If confirmed, as
I said, it's this administration's policy to follow court
orders.
Senator Slotkin. It's not this administration's policy. Can
you agree that right now they are not implementing Supreme
Court orders? You cannot say it's policy if they are not
implementing them.
Mr. Percival. I absolutely disagree with that. So there's
multiple aspects to facilitating the return of somebody. One of
them is the DHS side of it, which is, we call it eliminating
domestic obstacles to return. If someone shows up at a port of
entry, we would make sure they get in the country. The second
piece would be international negotiations because the
individuals are in the custody of a foreign government. So
that's a State Department piece. DHS does not do foreign
policy, but obviously those are very complicated negotiations.
Senator Slotkin. Yes, but you cannot say, we have not
negotiated with the country to get them back. The President of
El Salvador where one of these guys is being held, was in the
Oval Office. We have access to this President to facilitate
negotiations. DHS is choosing not to adhere to court orders
from the Supreme Court. You are going to be the lawyer. I know
I am over time, but I would just ask that you please obey the
constitution and the separation of powers, not just Donald
Trump.
Chairman Paul. Senator Lankford.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANKFORD
Senator Lankford. Thank you. Thank you, all the witnesses
and for your commitment to be able to be here and to be able to
do the tasks that the Nation needs and the President's asked
you to be able to do. This a very difficult process. It's a
long process and it's a stressful process, and there's 10
million forms and everyone's invading your privacy to be able
to go through this. Your families have already been through a
lot. It's great to be able to see all your families that are
here as well. But this is a tough process. Thanks for stepping
up into doing it, because we need a lot of help.
Mr. Cairncross, let me start with you on this, on the
cybersecurity side. In the past last year toward the tail end
of the Biden administration, we had the largest cyber
penetration in the history of our country where the Chinese
invaded our telecom. They got in all systems, they are in DC's
telecom system. It was a massive penetration that has actually
occurred, by the way, that was when full funding was happening.
I know we just had a conversation saying, if you cut funding,
what happens? When there was full funding that occurred.
What can we do at this point? What would you say are your
priorities stepping in to be able to protect America and our
infrastructure?
Mr. Cairncross. The first thing I would say, Senator is, in
response to the first part of that, there's nothing that the
President of the United States cares more about than the
protection of American citizens. I am grateful to have his
confidence and the confidence of the White House to be able to
execute in this role.
What you are talking about, Salt Typhoon.
Senator Lankford. Correct.
Mr. Cairncross. Let me add onto the Volt Typhoon,
demonstrates China is without question the single biggest
threat in this domain that we face. What Volt and Salt show--
and Salt was the espionage telecom hack, which is ongoing, and
Volt is a pre-positioning on our critical infrastructure--and
what that demonstrates to the earlier point I was making about
strategic dilemmas, is China is squatting on our critical
infrastructure systems, and they have an ability to exercise
that at a time and place of their choosing. That should be
unacceptable and it is unacceptable.
I look forward to do everything I can to make sure that our
adversaries, our enemies, and criminals who operate in this
space know that it is not a cost-free endeavor.
Senator Lankford. Yes. We are all counting on that to be
able to stay engaged on it. I would tell you that all of our
entities come back to me with the same thing. If the Chinese
were to roll in with airplanes and tanks and to be able to
attack us, we expect the United States to be able to step up
and do something.
If they are coming in the cyber world and they are
attacking us and destroying our infrastructure, we expect the
United States to be able to help us engage in this. So we
anticipate that.
Mr. Rhodes, I want to ask you a little bit about one of the
issues that's come up several times. Federal law already
requires that if a Federal contractor is in place or
subcontractor, that they do E-Verify for those individuals. We
have now discovered that that was not actually occurring. That
there was just kind of a check the box that you do it. There
was no verify. So, it was all trust, no verify in the process
for our contractors and the subcontractors in the process.
What would you do to be able to make sure that contractors
and subcontractors are following the law that currently exists
on hiring someone who's not legally present in the country for
a Federal contract?
Mr. Rhodes. Senator, thank you for the question. I think my
colleagues thank you for the question to me as well. I would
take a hard look at that because I do believe in that. And so,
I think, you know, through the Office of Federal Procurement
Policy, we'll take a look, if confirmed, at how folks are
following that law, and if we need to put stricter regulations
in place and prove the systems that manage that, then we should
do that. I appreciate that question.
Senator Lankford. We will count on that and we will do some
follow up on it back and forth. Mr. Law, I want to just
highlight something. In the next four years, we have Federation
Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) World Cup, we
have America's 250th birthday, and we have the Olympics coming.
Those are massive events for security. When I visited with DHS
leaders two years ago, we were clearly not ready.
What has been handed to DHS is not a well-formed plan to be
able to be prepared for the entire world coming here. I am
asking you, how are you going to ramp up for those massive
security events?
Mr. Law. Thank you for the question, Senator. We also have
the Club World Cup coming up here in due course as well. I
completely agree with you that the plan that we inherited to
prepare for those major events was insufficient when we came in
in January. As senior counselor, I have been working with a lot
of those teams to do that, recognizing where there are
vulnerabilities. Of course, as you know, the President has
tapped Andrew Giuliani, who is incredibly competent and capable
of executing particularly on the FIFA World Cup effort.
To the extent that there are any policy shortcomings,
whether it is in the security aspect of it, countering the
drone threat as well, or anything to do with the facilitation
of the movement of fans, the teams or, getting immigration
benefits for those to come to enjoy all of those events here in
our great country. I would definitely work with you if
committed to help clear those up and make sure there are sound
policies that make these events all very successful.
Senator Lankford. OK, we will count on that. Thank you.
Chairman Paul. I would just like to chime in on the
sporting events. Most of these organizations are very rich. Why
don't we charge them? If we are going to help them, I am fine
for helping them, but the National Football League (NFL) should
pay, FIFA should pay, they all should pay for what the
government does. Nothing's free and we are $2 trillion short.
Senator Blumenthal.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BLUMENTHAL
Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Mr. Chair. Thank you all for
being here. Thanks for your willingness to serve and thank you
to your families as well, who are serving when you do.
Mr. Percival, as you well know the President last night
issued a very broad travel ban. My view is that it may well be
over broad and blunderbuss, denying our nation energy and
talents and skills that we need for our economy. Not to mention
the humanitarian concerns that many of us have. We are still
analyzing and evaluating this ban, but it strikes me as
problematic in a number of respects, constitutionally as well
as in terms of policy.
But I want to focus particularly on the impact of one of
the aspects of this program as it affects our Afghan at risk
allies who were interpreters and security guards and aided our
troops and diplomats. My son is one of them. He was a Marine
Corps Officer in Afghanistan who was greatly aided by his
interpreter. He brought him over after a couple of years of
working hard in the system. I have been a champion of the
Afghan Adjustment Act. I care deeply about these Afghan allies
who put their lives on the line. They now have targets on their
back. If they have to go back to Afghanistan, they will be
tortured and murdered.
Several months ago, the administration suspended the United
States Refugee Admissions Program, which left hundreds of these
Afghan allies stranded in Pakistan and Qatar having fled the
Taliban only to get stuck by our apathy in the third country,
while already engaged in the screening process to come here.
Now, the administration has suspended all immigrant and non-
immigrant visas for Afghan nationals pursuant to the travel ban
that President Trump issued yesterday.
Would you agree with me--I hope you will--that we ought to
first of all make individualized determinations on many of the
people wanting to come to this country, but specifically
focusing on our Afghan allies. Shouldn't we allow these people
to come to the country that they served in Afghanistan and now
are at risk along with their families of death and torture if
they are not allowed to come here?
Mr. Percival. Thank you, Senator, for the question. First
of all, thank you to your son for his service. Obviously, the
American public appreciates that. Honestly, I was getting ready
for this hearing. I think this just broke last night. I am not
super familiar with the President's order. My understanding is
it's under 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA),
which I believe the Ninth Circuit just said, exudes deference
to the President.
This is a decision that the President makes. As general
counsel, if confirmed, my focus would be on providing legal
advice.
Senator Blumenthal. Will you work on making exceptions for
those allies, mainly from Afghanistan, but possibly other
countries who in effect provide these services? Because if we
do not help them now, nobody's going to want to help our troops
in the future when they are on the ground serving our country
in other countries.
Mr. Percival. If confirmed, Senator, I am happy to continue
this conversation. Like I said, I am not super familiar with
the order that was signed last night.
Senator Blumenthal. Would you agree with me that people in
this country who are not citizens, are entitled to due process?
Mr. Percival. Senator, I think the discussion about due
process has gotten a little confusing because due process is
not a one size fits all. The question is how much process are
you due? So, depending on your circumstances, the amount of
process that you are due under the due process clause will vary
significantly. For example, expedited removal involves a very
rapid deportation.
Senator Blumenthal. But they are entitled to some due
process. I know that courts make distinctions, but due process
has a meaning, as you well know. I think it's a yes or no
answer. Yes, they are entitled due process.
Mr. Percival. Whatever process they are due, and that
that's going to vary significantly, Senator. In some cases, it
will be very little like, for example, expedited removal.
Senator Blumenthal. Isn't it in all cases, yes?
Mr. Percival. That's a very categorical statement, Senator.
Senator Blumenthal. Sometimes lawyers have to enforce
rights categorically because we are a great country that
follows the law. The Constitution says that everybody in this
country is entitled to fairness and a day in court before an
impartial and objective tribunal if something significant is
going to happen to them as a result of government action.
Wouldn't you agree with that process?
Mr. Percival. I do not agree with that statement. That's a
very categorical description of the due process clause that is
not consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Mathews v.
Eldridge. It really depends whether it's a court or an officer.
Expedited removal is a very good example of that.
Senator Blumenthal. Let me just ask you finally, you had an
exchange with one of my colleagues here about obeying court
orders. If FEMA is ordered to rehire people who have been
terminated, will you obey that court order?
Mr. Percival. As I said before, Senator, my understanding
of this administration's policy is to follow court orders.
Senator Blumenthal. If your department is ordered against
clawing back funds, will you obey that order?
Mr. Percival. Senator, this administration's policy is to
follow court orders.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
Chairman Paul. Thank you. It's been asked several times
about CISA and reauthorizing CISA. I think one of the things as
we looked at, and I think Mr. Cairncross's point as well made,
that you know, the private sector deals with a lot of cyber
threats and if anything, it's probably better. If you compare
sort of the protection of privacy of government, there's been a
lot of government breaches of data, and maybe not so many, but
there are breaches everywhere.
But I would think maybe the learning curve might be the
government actually learning from some people in the private
marketplace. But on reauthorizing this, one of the things that
President Trump has done, which I think is an extraordinary
defense of the First Amendment, is to say that government is no
longer going to be in the business of censorship. Government's
not going to be meeting with social media companies. CISA's not
going to be meeting with them. The FBI's not going to be
meeting with them.
There will be no intimidation, there will be no threats.
There will be no, we are going to use antitrust against you. We
are going to take away your liability. These were not even
veiled threats against big companies, against Facebook, against
Twitter, and I am very proud that President Trump has said no
more. That that's gone.
In order to get policy, though, that we can live under, we
do not know who the next President will be, we always want to
try to change the law too. While I am proud of that executive
action, I will do everything in my power to make sure the CISA
authorization has a clause in it that states that no government
resources for CISA will be utilized to diminish in any way
constitutionally protected speech.
Mr. Cairncross, do you have any comment on that or any
problem with that clause if we insert that into the
authorities?
Mr. Cairncross. I do not have a problem with that, Senator.
Chairman Paul. Mr. Law, any comment on it?
Mr. Law. I do not. I would echo my colleague here.
Chairman Paul. Senator Fetterman.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR FETTERMAN
Senator Fetterman. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I know it's like
we all know what happened per the new administration, and they
have a much different kind of a view on immigration and the
border. I actually agree with parts of it. Honestly, I have
said this publicly, and I will say this again, I believe our
party did not do a good job with the border, and I was very
clear on that.
Then also I would like to say that I was the lead co-
sponsor of the Laken Bill as well too. I believe that we can be
very pro-immigration, but we also have to have a very secure
border. That puts me in a different place now. Some people did
not feel like I honored the spirit of immigration. But I
actually believe that I did.
Now, today I am going to continue that part of my
conversation and my commitment. And that is with Deferred
Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). Now we can all agree with
that. Now, for me now my wife was a former dreamer. My wife was
a former dreamer. Now I would not have the family that I have,
if it was not for her. But, she was brought to the country when
she was seven years old. Of course, and now, Mr. Law, I know we
all have LexisNexis, and we all know, and I know that you do
not have a strong opinion for dreamers and DACA.
I am not going to turn it into got you theater, because I
really want to have like a sincere conversation here in our
brief time we are here. For example, I am trying to understand
why punishing dreamers that were brought here as children here
in this country now, why there's not a path for citizenship,
why when they are making these kinds of important contributions
here to our Nation.
And it's like, can we only just be punitive and vengeful
about immigration? Why we cannot even acknowledge that that
could be part of something very positive thing for our nation?
Mr. Law. Thank you for the question, Senator. Thank you for
your support of border security as well as the Laken Riley Act.
I would also like to thank you for a leading role in combating
antisemitism that has just exploded in recent times. To this
specific question of illegal aliens receiving a path to
citizenship. That is solely the purview of Congress.
The most notable legislative opportunity that I am familiar
with is known as the Dream Act. It's my understanding that that
Bill has gone before the Congress numerous times, and every
single time it has failed.
Senator Fetterman. But personally, any of you in front of
us here today, do any of you perhaps could consider or maybe
support something like that legislative solution for dreamers?
Mr. Law. Thank you for the question, Senator. I think it is
the purview of the lawmakers to pass legislation and present
those to the President. Thus far it's been my understanding
that that Bill has failed to obtain the votes necessary to make
it to the White House.
Senator Fetterman. For me, because it just continually just
seems to like it's difficult to, you know, two things must be
true, a secure border but then now and we also can celebrate
immigration as well too. Now for me, we had a young person
named Georgia Ximena, and she was just pulled over and it was
actually the wrong car. Of course, she was a dreamer and now
she could be looking at a possible situation of being deported
for that. She was brought here as a young child. I am not
really sure it's American to punish a person who is living her
best life and making significant contributions to our nation to
be punished for a decision for a parent when they were five,
six, seven, eight years at that point.
I do not believe that it's an American way to just put them
in like a permanent kind of purgatory, where always worrying
about looking over their shoulder that now, the next single
time, then they could be de deported. They are being paid for
sins that they were not a part of that thing. I am hopeful, and
I am saying it now publicly today, again, somebody as a
Democrat committed to a secure border, why can't we deliver a
solution for our dreamers?
Because immigration is part of America's superpower and
it's made us much stronger and better. Two things must be true
at the same time. Now, thank you. My time has expired, and
thank you for answering my questions.
Chairman Paul. Senator Hawley.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HAWLEY
Senator Hawley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Congratulations to all the nominees. Thank you for being here.
Mr. Cairncross, let me just start with you if I could. One
of the most pressing, but I think also one of the most
overlooked vulnerabilities when it comes to our national
cybersecurity posture is the crisis facing our rural hospitals.
I say this as somebody in a State where 40 percent of the
hospitals in Missouri are rural hospitals. Many of these
hospitals have no full-time cybersecurity personnel. They
cannot afford it. They do not have the personnel for it, they
do not have the budget for it. And that makes them easy targets
for cyber criminals, for ransomware gangs, and even sometimes
for nation-state actors.
As you can appreciate, when these hospitals are attacked,
it's not just their information technology (IT) systems that go
offline, it's cancer treatments, it's surgeries that gets
canceled, it's emergency care that gets disrupted. Let me just
ask you, are you familiar generally with this issue and the
plight that rural hospitals face in this regard?
Mr. Cairncross. I am, Senator, and I was saying earlier,
these criminals and our enemies are targeting the most
vulnerable Americans, and it's got to stop.
Senator Hawley. Let me ask you, how would you use your
position to help shore up the cyber defenses of rural hospitals
and the broader healthcare sector's vulnerability in critical
infrastructure when it comes to this issue?
Mr. Cairncross. Sure. The first thing is getting my feet on
the ground, working with you, working with all your offices in
your States to ensure that I am hearing and understand what
those needs are. Then I am using, if I am confirmed, the
position as the lead coordinator for the U.S. Government cyber
policy to make sure that they have the defenses that they need.
Senator Hawley. Good. Let me tell you about something that
we have been doing on our end. The last Congress, this
Committee unanimously advanced my bipartisan bill, the Rural
Hospital Cybersecurity Enhancement Act. Ranking Member Peters
and I co-sponsored it with many others on this Committee. It
directed the development of a comprehensive cybersecurity
strategy for rural hospitals.
It would also have directed instructional materials and
resources to be made available to these hospitals because
again, they do not have the budget for consultants, they do not
have the budget for people to come in and do this for them.
Does that sound like the kind of approach that you would be
willing to work with us on?
Mr. Cairncross. It does, and I look forward to working with
you and your team on it.
Senator Hawley. Fantastic. I will take you up on that. I
think it's absolutely vital for my State and for the many rural
hospitals in my State.
Let me shift gears a little bit and talk about foreign
hackers in a different context. The threat that's already
inside the wire where State-sponsored cyber actors embedding
themselves in our infrastructure systems. We have been told we
already have in our telecom system, this is the Salt Typhoon
issue. We already have hackers who are embedded.
In your assessment, how vulnerable are our critical systems
to these kind of State-sponsored infiltration campaigns?
Mr. Cairncross. Senator, what I was saying is these attacks
are scaling up and they are becoming more sophisticated. So
what really is key, since so much of cyber defense falls on the
private sector in our country, is a great relationship between
the United States government and the private sector. That
involves going to them and listening and figuring out what is
the barrier to a smooth and efficient and effective defense?
In some cases, that is working on a regulatory scheme that
makes sense. It's incentivizing information flow, and it's
using the comparative advantage of the United States
government, which can illuminate the battlefield for the
private sector and leveraging those assets.
Senator Hawley. Let me just ask you about what can be done
in the way of remediation, which is kind of a fancy word for
kicking these foreign actors out of our telecom system. I do
not think the American people realize, in fact, I am sure they
do not. They do not realize the extent to which our current
telecom system has been deeply compromised. I will just tell
you, Members of Congress were told a year ago now, not even a
year ago, that we should just expect that our telephone
conversations, any unencrypted text messages are being
monitored constantly by foreign actors. Our voice messages may
well be read. That's not because there's special access to
Members of Congress. It's just because that's where foreign
actors would choose to concentrate.
If a foreign actor chose to concentrate on any member of
the audience here, what we were told behind closed doors, of
course, but what we were told is, is that foreign actors
basically have unlimited access to our voice messages, to our
telephone calls. This is astounding. The American people do not
realize it because the American people have not been told, this
has been kept from them. They are sitting, these foreign actors
are sitting right now, they are sitting in our telecom system,
in our exchanges.
What are we going to do to get them out of there and
protect the American people who right now are sitting ducks and
frankly, they have not been told the truth?
Mr. Cairncross. Yes, Senator, I think that that is correct.
I think you are right that the American public is largely
unaware of the scale of this issue. This is not an IT issue.
This is an operational issue. It manifests in real life and it
has real potentially life and death consequences. As I have
said over and over again, they are targeting the most
vulnerable among us, along with our telecom system.
Volt Typhoon was critical infrastructure. They are
squatting on our system. It is imposing, as I have said, a
strategic dilemma on us. That behavior needs to change. In
order to do that, I believe we should begin to impose strategic
dilemmas on our adversaries in this domain.
Senator Hawley. That would certainly be a good start. Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Paul. Time has expired. Senator Peters.
Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chair. First of all, on
April 4th, the DHS announced that it was permanently canceling
the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC)
program, including canceling funding for projects that are
actually currently in progress. Just basically pulled the plug
from them. These projects are critical for communities to
reduce their risk before a disaster strikes.
As a result, we have a tornado shelter, for example, in
Salem Township, Michigan that may not be finished,
construction's begun, but it's being just pulled out, which
does not seem really thoughtful use of taxpayer dollars to do
it halfway and then pull out and stop a project. Then if you
look at resilience projects, generally, they tend to save
taxpayer money. To build it stronger upfront is a lot cheaper
than fixing it later.
My question for you, sir is, if confirmed, do you commit to
following the law, which I have heard you say that you will do
many times, and reinstate these illegally canceled funding from
Congress that's appointed to the BRIC program? Because
following the law would to reinstate that funding.
Mr. Percival. Thank you for the question, Senator. I know
we have talked about this before, so I have not been super
involved in that in my role as senior counselor, but I would
respectfully push back on the suggestion that DHS has violated
the law. I have a general understanding of the Impoundment Act
and the various options that DHS has.
If confirmed, I would be happy to dig into that for you,
but I do not have the same understanding that you do that DHS
has violated the law.
Senator Peters. Do you believe that appropriations by
Congress are law?
Mr. Percival. Yes, Senator, I do. My understanding of the
Impoundment Act is when you have an appropriation and a new
administration comes in, if they want to revisit programs and
change them within the scope of the existing appropriation,
they have the right to do that. They can also, in some
circumstances do a reprogramming. Then the third option is to
follow the procedures of the Impoundment Act that I am sure you
are aware of. Those are sort of the three options. That's my
understanding,
Senator Peters. But just canceling outright is not
following the law.
Mr. Percival. That would depend Senator on whether there is
some other plan to obligate those funds within the scope of the
appropriation within the relevant fiscal year.
Senator Peters. I am not aware of any just to basically
pulling the plug on all these projects. Very clear, Congress,
we pass the law, appropriations are laws, and the President has
to faithfully execute the laws of the land. And that's not
happening.
Mr. Percival. Again, Senator, my understanding is that DHS
is following applicable laws and if confirmed, that's what I
would do.
Senator Peters. Mr. Rhodes, reports indicate that agencies
across the Federal Government have procured Palantir's
technology to create a master database of Americans personal
data. I am certainly alarmed by these reports to have the
master database. I would suspect the Chair would be concerned
about that as well. The potential disregard for the law as well
as the privacy and civil liberties of Americans to have this
large database.
My question for you is, do you think it's appropriate for
the Federal Government to purchase technology for the purpose
of consolidating massive data about Americans?
Mr. Rhodes. Senator, I appreciate the question. I do not
have any knowledge of that database by Palantir. I would have
to look into that.
Senator Peters. If confirmed, when you look into that,
would you have concerns based on what I have just said?
Mr. Rhodes. If confirmed, again, I would take a look into
that and like my colleagues, I would follow all the laws that
are applicable. But I would have to take a look.
Senator Peters. Another question for you. Companies of
current and former DOGE members have received hundreds of
millions of dollars in Federal contracts. However, agencies
have refused to share information about these individuals and
their particular involvement in the Federal procurement and
acquisition process. This certainly leaves open the potential
for fraud, waste, abuse.
My question for you is, if confirmed, will you commit to
reviewing and providing this Committee information about DOGE'S
involvement specifically in Federal procurement?
Mr. Rhodes. Senator, thank you for the question. If
confirmed, I will follow all conflict of interest regulations
and laws I have followed in my entire time in the military. If
confirmed, I will do the same.
Senator Peters. Specifically, what steps will you take to
increase transparency into the acquisition process?
Mr. Rhodes. Senator, I appreciate that question. I am a
transparent and direct individual and so I believe that as we
do contracts and Federal procurement, those should be available
to the public as----
Senator Peters. What steps would you take specifically?
Mr. Rhodes. One of the steps, Senator, that I would take is
to ensure that the information is available following all
regulations that are in place so that they get posted. There
are systems that allow that information to be put out there
that we have currently. I would ensure that we continue to do
so.
Senator Peters. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Paul. Thank you all for appearing today. I think
the hearing's gone very well. I think you can take the message
back to the Secretary that I think the country at large is very
pleased with the control of the border. Amazing it happened
without legislation, without new appropriation. I understand
there will be some new appropriation needed. I would also take
back to the department though, that your math does not add up
on the wall. $46.5 billion for the wall.
Currently, on the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
website, it says it's costing about $6.5 million per mile. If
you do 1,000 more miles, that's $6.5 billion. So, you are
asking for enough to do 8,000 miles, so it does not add up.
It's also been noted that a third of the border is now under
the control and surveillance of sonar towers that Anduril's
putting up. I am a big believer in that.
I think it's actually a less expensive way. You do that and
combine it with helicopters, you can probably patrol the
border--you already are doing a good job now, but you can
probably add another layer to it within months simply with the
sonar towers and helicopters. While I am for some more money, I
think it's still asking for too much and the math does not add
up.
Most of that, you know, there's 1,200 miles left. We will
be lucky to put fence on a thousand. We are probably going to
put fence on less than that. We ought to be open-minded to
other things like the sonar towers and other technologies. Some
of that's pretty immediate too. You do not have to wait years
to build a wall. You immediately can put it up and begin
defending the border. But by and large, I think the President's
done a great job.
I think really, whether you are Republican, independent or
Democrat, people want criminals, to be captured. They want to
be safe. They are horrified by the people who have been killed
by people who are illegally in the country. Even if only one
percent of the people came in were criminals, there's like
maybe eight million people came in in the last couple years,
that would be 80,000 people roaming around that are criminals.
It probably would be one percent.
I do compliment the President and Secretary for doing it.
Still very interested in the speech thing. I hope you will take
that back, that we are going to try to get that into law. What
the President is doing to protect free speech is amazing,
needed, shouldn't be partisan, but we would really like to make
it part of law. But thank you for your testimony.
The nominees have all filed responses\1\ to biographical
and financial questionnaires.\2\ They have answered pre-hearing
questions submitted by the Committee\3\ and had their financial
statements reviewed by the Office of Government Ethics
(OGE).\4\ Additionally, the Committee has received letters of
support for the nominees.
Without objection, this information will made part of the
hearing record\5\ with the exception of the nominees' financial
data, which are on file with the Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The information for Mr. Cairncross appears in the Appendix on
page 29.
\2\ The information for Mr. Law appears in the Appendix on page 82.
\3\ The information for Mr. Rhodes appears in the Appendix on page
139.
\4\ The information for Mr. Woodruff appears in the Appendix on
page 186.
\5\ The information for Mr. Percival appears in the Appendix on
page 236.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The hearing record will remain open until noon tomorrow,
June 6th. Thank you all for your time. The meeting is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10.43 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]