    [Senate Hearing 119-147]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 119-147

                         NOMINATIONS OF PEDRO ALLENDE,
                         SEAN PLANKEY, CHRISTOPHER FOX,
                              AND EDWARD O'CONNELL

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                   HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

             NOMINATIONS OF PEDRO ALLENDE TO BE UNDER SECRETARY FOR
              SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
            SECURITY; SEAN PLANKEY TO BE DIRECTOR, CYBERSECURITY AND
              INFRASTRUCTURE SECURITY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
            SECURITY; CHRISTOPHER FOX TO BE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE
           INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL
             INTELLIGENCE; AND EDWARD O'CONNELL TO BE AN ASSOCIATE
                           JUDGE, D.C. SUPERIOR COURT

                                   __________

                                 JULY 24, 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(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    61-440 PDF                   WASHINGTON : 2026

            COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

                         RAND PAUL, Kentucky, Chairman
    RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin               GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
    JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma             MAGGIE WOOD 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
    ASHLEY MOODY, Florida                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 Peters...............................................     2
        Senator Moreno...............................................     3
        Senator Blumenthal...........................................     5
        Senator Moody................................................     7
        Senator Scott................................................    11
        Senator Hassan...............................................    12
        Senator Ernst................................................    15
        Senator Lankford.............................................    17
        Senator Hawley...............................................    19
        Senator Slotkin..............................................    20
    Prepared statements:
        Senator Peters...............................................    27

                                   WITNESSES
                            THURSDAY, JULY 24, 2025

    Pedro Allende to be Under Secretary for Science & Technology,
      U.S. Department of Homeland Security
        Prepared statement...........................................    29
        Biographical and professional information....................    31
        Letter from U.S. Office of Government Ethics.................    59
        Responses to pre-hearing questions...........................    68
        Responses to post-hearing questions..........................    94
    Sean Plankey to be Director, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure
      Security, U.S. Department of Homeland Security
        Prepared statement...........................................   104
        Biographical and professional information....................   106
        Letter from U.S. Office of Government Ethics.................   122
        Responses to pre-hearing questions...........................   132
        Responses to post-hearing questions..........................   146
    Christopher Fox to be Inspector General of the Intelligence
      Community, Office of the Director of National Intelligence
        Prepared statement...........................................   159
        Biographical and professional information....................   161
        Letter from U.S. Office of Government Ethics.................   175
    Edward O'Connell to be an Associate Judge, DC Superior Court
        Prepared statement...........................................   182
        Biographical and professional information....................   183
        Responses to post-hearing questions..........................   205

                                    APPENDIX

    The chart submitted by Senator Ernst.............................   210

                         NOMINATIONS OF PEDRO ALLENDE,
                         SEAN PLANKEY, CHRISTOPHER FOX,
                              AND EDWARD O'CONNELL

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, JULY 24, 2025

                                         U.S. Senate,
                               Committee on Homeland Security
                                      and Governmental Affairs,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 12 p.m., in room
    342, Senate Dirksen Office Building, Hon. Rand Paul, Chair of
    the Committee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Paul [presiding], Lankford, Scott,
    Hawley, Moreno, Ernst, Moody, Peters, Hassan, Blumenthal, and
    Slotkin.

                   OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PAUL

        Chairman Paul. The Committee will come to order. The
    Committee meets to consider four nominations. First, Pedro
    Allende. Pedro is to be the U.S. Under Secretary for Science
    and Technology (S&T) at the Department of Homeland Security
    (DHS). Mr. Allende serves as the Secretary of Florida's
    Department of Management. He previously served in several roles
    in the Executive Branch, including a Deputy Assistant Secretary
    at Department of Homeland Security.
        Second is Sean Plankey, to be the Director of Cybersecurity
    and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) at the Department of
    Homeland Security. Mr. Plankey currently serves as senior
    advisor at the department. He's a veteran of the United States
    Coast Guard (USCG) and served at the Department of Energy (DOE)
    during the first Trump administration.
        Next is Christopher Fox to be the Intelligence Community
    Inspector General (ICIG). Mr. Fox currently serves as senior
    advisor to the Director of National Intelligence (DNI). He's a
    veteran of the United States Air Force (USAF) and previously
    operated his own business.
        Last but not least, is Edward O'Connell to be Associate
    Judge (AJ) of the D.C. Superior Court. Mr. O'Connell presently
    serves as the Chief of Staff and Deputy General Counsel (DGC)
    in the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) for the United
    States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and Defense Nuclear
    Facility Safety Board (DNFSB). Prior to joining the IG, he was
    a career prosecutor serving in the D.C. U.S. Attorney's Office,
    as an Assistant United State's Attorney (AUSA) in Baltimore,
    Maryland.
        The witnesses have submitted written statements, and I ask
    unanimous consent (UC) to submit letters of support received
    for the nominees. Without objection, those will be entered into
    the record.
        In the interest of time, I will forego opening remarks, but
    I will recognize the Ranking Member, Senator Peters.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETERS\1\

        Senator Peters. Thank you Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I am
    relieved to see that Paul Ingrassia, the nominee to run the
    Office of Special Counsel (OSC), has been pulled from today's
    hearing. The Office of Special Counsel is an independent, non-
    partisan agency that investigates allegations of prohibited
    personnel practices involving Federal employees, including
    whistleblower retaliation.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Senator Peters appears in the
    Appendix on page 27.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mr. Ingrassia is unqualified for the position, both in
    terms of legal experience and given his long record of bigoted
    statements. I urge the administration to formally withdraw his
    nomination.
        We have a number of nominees for critical roles in the
    Department of Homeland Security, the intelligence community
    (IC), and the courts in our Nation's capital, before us today.
    Sean Plankey is nominated to lead the Cybersecurity and
    Infrastructure Security Agency. Mr. Plankey, thank you for
    joining us here today. If confirmed, you will be tasked with
    overseeing an agency that has been gutted by the Trump
    Administration.
        As you know, CISA is the backbone of our Nation's
    cybersecurity defense system, protecting Federal networks and
    partnering with the private sector. CISA is the only civilian
    agency with the infrastructure, the expertise, and the
    statutory authority to carry out this critical work.
        Since President Trump's first term, he has worked to
    decimate CISA, most recently slashing its workforce by more
    than 30 percent, and eliminating key leadership positions. The
    administration has also proposed a nearly 20 percent budget cut
    for the agency for Fiscal Year (FY) 2026.
        Cyber-attacks are one of the most significant national
    security threats our Nation faces, and I am extremely concerned
    by this administration's actions that are undercutting CISA's
    capacity to defend our Nation.
        We are also considering the nomination of Christopher Fox
    to be the Inspector General of the intelligence community, a
    role that demands full independence and credibility. This
    nomination also deserves scrutiny.
        Mr. Fox's decision to accept a political appointment in the
    Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), even
    after he was nominated to serve as Inspector General gives me
    pause. Not only is he a senior advisor to the director, but he
    is also currently running the Information Management Office
    (IMO), which handles the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA),
    declassification, and record retentions issues, all matters
    that would likely need to have independent review from the
    eventual confirmed Inspector General.
        We also have Pedro Allende who is nominated to lead DHS
    Science and Technology Directorate. This directorate plays a
    critical role in ensuring DHS components have the most reliable
    and effective technology to carry out their Homeland Security
    missions. The threats we face are getting more complicated each
    day, and DHS must have the right tools to address those threats
    and keep American safe.
        Finally, we have Edward O'Connell, who is nominated to be
    the associate judge of the D.C. Superior Court. The D.C.
    Superior Court functions as a State level trial court here in
    the Nation's capital. The court handles some of the highest
    case volumes in the country and is strained further by extended
    vacancies on the bench.
        Every day, judges on the Superior Court decide matters that
    impact the freedom, livelihoods and safety of individuals and
    families across the District of Columbia. Currently, 15 of the
    62 seats on the court are vacant, with two more judges set to
    retire in September. These vacancies delay cases and place
    serious burdens on the current judges, and I am glad to see the
    administration is moving forward with the nominees for this
    important role and will help carry out justice in our Nation's
    capital.
        I look forward to hearing from all of you here today, hear
    more about your experience and how you plan to approach these
    very important roles that each of you have been nominated for.
    Welcome to the Committee. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Chairman Paul. It is the practice of the Homeland Security
    and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC) to swear in
    witnesses. Will the nominees please stand and raise your right
    hand. Do you swear that the testimony you will give before this
    Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
    the truth, so help you, God?
        [Witnesses answer in the affirmative.]
        It's a standard practice of the Chair to ask the nominees
    the following question. Do you agree without reservation, to
    comply with any request or summons to appear and testify before
    any duly constituted Committee of Congress if you are
    confirmed?
        [Witnesses answer in the affirmative.]
        Chairman Paul. Thank you. You may be seated. We will now
    proceed to questions where each Member will have five minutes.
    We will start with Senator Moreno.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MORENO

        Senator Moreno. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and congratulations
    to the four of you for this nomination to serve our country.
    Thank you for your willingness to serve, by the way. I know
    it's a big sacrifice, and certainly all of you will be doing a
    great service to your country.
        Mr. Plankey, we will start with you. I enjoyed being with
    you. I enjoyed our conversation. The good news is you are not
    completely insane, which already makes you dramatically more
    qualified than your predecessor. Question for you would be, how
    are you going to restore the agency's reputation? Over the last
    four years of the Biden administration, we saw an agency that
    should have the total trust and respect of the American public
    deteriorated into a spying agency on American citizens. How
    will you restore the confidence of Americans in that agency?
        Mr. Plankey. Senator, thank you for the question, and thank
    you for the opportunity to be here. Extremely honored to be
    here and have the opportunity if confirmed to lead the
    Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.
        If confirmed as the leader of CISA, I would seek to restore
    CISA to its congressional authorities and focus on the missions
    that this body tasked it with, which is securing the Federal
    Executive Branch and then securing the critical infrastructure
    of the United States.
        Senator Moreno. There is a lot of acronyms that are thrown
    here. I am only through 10,000 of them so far. I think we have
    200,000 acronyms left to go. Can you explain for the record and
    for my colleagues, the difference between CISA the agency,
    which you are going to restore back to its original mission we
    just described, and CISA 2015, which is set to expire in
    September, and what the implications are of not having that
    renewed, and how that's very different than the agency that we
    just discussed.
        Mr. Plankey. Yes, Senator. CISA the agency is mandated to
    follow the congressional direction to secure the Federal
    computing Executive Branch, Federal civilian Executive Branch
    computer systems, and then also protect the critical
    infrastructure of the United States often thought of as the
    Nation's Cyber Defense Agency.
        Now, CISA 2015, was the 10-year authorization of
    information sharing. That law in particular was actually very
    critical for protecting liabilities of sharing information for
    business to business and business to government. When somebody
    has a cybersecurity breach or concern, they then could share
    that information to protect themselves and protect others
    without experiencing liability for sharing that information
    Senator.
        Senator Moreno. What would be the implications if that was
    just led to expire?
        Mr. Plankey. Senator, if that was led to expire, in
    particular in the financial sector, who does some of the
    largest, most prevalent amount of information sharing, they
    would experience difficulties in sharing and community
    protection of information security, and then other industries
    would as well.
        I would note Senator that Secretary Noem, my boss, she
    supports the reauthorization of CISA 2015.
        Senator Moreno. What's your current role in what are you
    doing now?
        Mr. Plankey. Yes, sir. I am the senior advisor to the
    Secretary, focused on the United States Coast Guard.
        Senator Moreno. Gotcha. Just a little bit of off topic for
    just a second. What is the morale among the Coast Guard knowing
    that the One Big Beautiful Bill just gave him historic funding?
        Mr. Plankey. Yes, Senator. The morale in the Coast Guard is
    very high right now. They received the largest amount of
    funding, in $24.59 billion to restore airplanes, ships,
    infrastructure, piers, buildings and training centers for the
    United States Coast Guard.
        They just hit recruitment numbers of putting 5,200 men and
    women in the United States through Training Center Cape May
    this year, which is an all-time high that we have not seen
    since 2002.
        Senator Moreno. That's great. It's nice to have a commander
    in chief that's refocused on the vital role that the Coast
    Guard plays, and glad to see those recruitment numbers playing
    out. Obviously, representing Ohio, it's got big Coast Guard
    presence there. We are seeing that.
        It's just great to see that we have made that historic
    investment in the Coast Guard. I wish more of my colleagues on
    the other side of the aisle had voted with us on that bill that
    gave that historic funding to the Coast Guard. Thank you, Mr.
    Chair.
        Chairman Paul. Senator Blumenthal.

                OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BLUMENTHAL

        Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Mr. Chair. Welcome to all of
    our nominees. Thank you for serving our country. Mr. Plankey, I
    have a couple of fairly straightforward yes or no questions.
    Was the 2020 election rigged and stolen?
        Mr. Plankey. Senator, thank you for your question----
        Senator Blumenthal. It's pretty much a yes or no question.
        Mr. Plankey. Thank you for your question, Senator. I have
    not reviewed any of the cybersecurity of the 2020 election.
        Senator Blumenthal. Don't have an opinion on whether the
    2020 election was rigged and stolen?
        Mr. Plankey. Senator, my opinion on the election as an
    American private citizen is probably not really relevant. But
    the electoral college did confirm President Joe Biden sworn
    into office.
        Senator Blumenthal. Let me ask you, were there,
    ``widespread election malfeasance and serious vulnerabilities
    with the voting machines'' that changed the election outcome?
        Mr. Plankey. Senator as you know elections are State run
    entities and many different sectors of State across the 50
    states of the United States pursue different methods to secure
    their own elections----
        Senator Blumenthal. Mr. Plankey, my time is limited, so I
    am just going to say to you, there ought to be no hesitation in
    your answer to these questions. The agency that you have been
    nominated to lead, CISA, along with the entire National
    Security and Intelligence Community agreed that the election
    was secure.
        You are undermining the confidence of the Nation in the
    election apparatus, at a time when that credibility is as
    important as ever when you are about to lead an agency that has
    responsibility for that security. State and elections officers
    across the country ran audits and examinations, and on a
    bipartisan basis, affirmed that President Trump lost the
    election. He won the next election.
        The answer to my questions is no. The 2020 election was not
    rigged and stolen. There were no widespread election
    malfeasance and serious vulnerabilities, even though President
    Trump said there were. Now, I know it is a contentious topic,
    but your role in that agency is to be above politics. If you
    cannot tell us with conviction and conscience that those
    elections were secure, I have very serious doubts about your
    ability to lead this agency.
        Let me ask you, if President Trump comes to you and he
    demands that CISA falsely claim that the 2026 or 2028 elections
    were rigged, what will you do?
        Mr. Plankey. Senator, as a cybersecurity professional,
    these are State run elections. I have not reviewed the
    cybersecurity posture of law 50 states----
        Senator Blumenthal. With all due respect.
        Mr. Plankey. That's like a doctor who's diagnosing somebody
    over the television because they saw him on the news.
        Senator Blumenthal. No, it's like a doctor who has a
    patient come to him and is responsible for doing the diagnosis.
    It may be a second opinion, but it actually is the
    determinative opinion because you are the head of the Federal
    agency that oversees the security of our election system for
    the entire nation.
        You are telling me in effect, you are just going to dodge,
    you are going to jump ship, you are going to evade that
    responsibility. I think that answer is completely
    unsatisfactory.
        Mr. Plankey. Senator, I did not say that I would dodge or
    abate any of my responsibility. I would remind you, Senator,
    that CISA is a consent-based cybersecurity agency, and CISA is
    postured to respond and support every State across the United
    States, and we will gladly and do our due diligence to support
    those States across the United States.
        Senator Blumenthal. You seem to not understand the
    responsibility of CISA. People turn to this agency for
    unbiased, objective science evidence-based expert information,
    and you are in effect saying that if President Trump's comes to
    you and he says, I want you to say this election was rigged,
    you are going to yield to him. Thank you.
        Chairman Paul. When we talk about elections and whether or
    not they're rigged or not, I don't think one party or another
    is particularly immune to this. There are still people who
    believe that the Daily Machine and the mafia in Cook County in
    1960. There's some evidence of it. It's a longtime American
    tradition, for both parties to question the other party in
    elections.
        I will say that in 2016 when Donald Trump won the first
    time, Hillary Clinton to this day says that he was an
    illegitimate President. Jimmy Carter said he was illegitimate
    from the very beginning. They tried to delegitimize Trump. I
    would say it's no different.
        In fact, if we are going to criticize Donald Trump for
    questioning the 2020 election, we should be equally critical of
    Hillary Clinton for questioning the 2016 election. The quotes
    are legion. I mean, dozens and dozens of quotes. Dozens and
    dozens of interviews. Hillary Clinton, to this day, is
    unrepentant in this.
        But it's worse than that. That's just sort of an opinion.
    What they ended up doing is using the apparatus of government
    to try to delegitimize Trump. They used the apparatus of
    government to spread something that was a falsehood, that the
    Russians got the election for Donald Trump. He was not
    deserving, the people did not vote for him. The Russians did
    this.
        It turns out that all of the intelligence reports saying
    the Russians, of course, they try to meddle, they meddle every
    time in all of our elections. It was judged to be insignificant
    and not consequential until it wasn't. Until all the sudden
    someone at the top of the of the intelligence community
    decided, oh, well, yes, we think Donald Trump's illegitimate.
    We are going to spread this throughout government. There
    basically was a conspiracy using government and using the power
    of the Intel agencies.
        For people who complained, Donald Trump complained about
    the 2020 election. My goodness, the Obama administration
    planted misinformation throughout government, purposely. They
    planted it in lots of different places.
        At one point, John Brennan is asked the question by the
    analyst that he has selected, this information Sir, this
    dossier, the Steele dossier, is opposition research, and it is
    unchecked. It is unverified. Brennan's flippant response was,
    yes, it sure sounds like it could be true. Sure, rings true.
    This is the head of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
    saying this. They got together and really cooked up something
    to delegitimize.
        I really am not that interested in hearing. Oh, Donald
    Trump says it. Will you admit the election wasn't rigged?
    There's a great book on this. It's called Rigged by Molly
    Hemingway. In it, she goes through in great detail the
    Democrats disregard. Does anybody remember the Democrats voted
    against seating electors? The whole January 6th stuff? They
    say, oh, this is unprecedented, Republicans aren't seating the
    electors.
        Now, look, I voted to seat the electors. I thought the
    argument wasn't a valid argument. But the thing is, Democrats,
    including one of the ones who worked, Raskin, to impeach the
    President, he voted not to seat the electors in 2016 because he
    thought the election was rigged.
        For goodness sakes, let's put this to rest. Both parties
    have accused each other of malfeasance. Both parties have
    accused the elections of being rigged, and let's just try to
    move forward.
        Senator Blumenthal. Mr. Chair, with all due respect,
    nothing you have said absolves this witness of a responsibility
    to answer these basic questions about the core responsibility
    of the agency he's been nominated to lead.
        Chairman Paul. CISA has nothing to do with the elections.
    The CISA has nothing to do with the State-run elections.
    Senator Moody.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Agree to
    disagree, I guess, Mr. Senator?

                   OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MOODY

        Senator Moody. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our
    nominees for being here today. I know this is not an easy
    process, and we appreciate you standing ready to answer our
    questions, and to your families who are here with you and
    supporting you, not only today, but after you are confirmed in
    these incredibly important roles.
        Public service is not easy, and we understand that and are
    grateful to you for the service to our country. I would like to
    recognize we did not do introductions for efficiency's sake. If
    we were doing them, I would have proudly introduced one of our
    nominees today, Pedro Allende.
        Pedro has served the great State of Florida in his capacity
    as the Secretary of the Florida Department of Management
    Services, which comprises three areas of service, business
    technology, and workforce. He oversaw a one billion budget and
    workforce of nearly 1,000 employees. He previously served as
    Deputy Assistant Secretary for Infrastructure Risk and
    Resilience policy with the Office of Strategy Policy and Plans,
    at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
        In this role, he led policy development to protect U.S.
    critical infrastructure against cyber, physical, and natural
    threats, while overseeing policy efforts to increase Federal
    and State local preparedness response and recovery
    capabilities. He's also served as a member of our Florida Cyber
    Cybersecurity Council. I have no doubt if confirmed he will
    once again serve the United States of America (USA) with great
    honor, and we appreciate you stepping up.
        Mr. Allende, if you can quickly, for the position for which
    you are nominated to serve now, it will be responsible for
    integrating cutting edge technology and reliable scientific
    research to support the department's mission of keeping America
    safe. Can you give this Committee an example of how in your
    role currently as the Secretary of Florida's Department of
    Management Services, you utilize new technology to better serve
    and protect the people of Florida?
        Mr. Allende. Thank you, Senator Moody for your kind words.
    I am honored for the nomination by President Trump and for this
    Committee's due diligence in the advice and consent role and to
    my family, my wife, behind me especially.
        In Florida, we have had the great opportunity to do
    interesting things, is how I describe it. We have had the
    opportunity to work not just within government but also expand
    outward. The department currently has research agreements with
    the University of Florida, University of South Florida (USF),
    Florida International University (FIU), and Idaho National
    Laboratory (INL) to fill in the gaps where State governments
    are not well equipped to provide solutions.
        Some of our innovative work has involved working on things
    such as assessments of locks and levy infrastructure and
    cybersecurity. Also, we have a project coming up that has been
    projected for next year with Idaho National Lab and Florida
    International University (FIU) to assess battery technology in
    its security, which will include the issue that's been recently
    in the news about inverters on solar panels.
        There are just a few of the examples. One example of just
    leveraging existing technology has been during Hurricane Ian in
    southwest Florida. The Governor and our team as directed ended
    up in addition to the traditional effort of bringing mobile
    devices called Cellular-on-Light-Truck (COLTs) and Cell on
    Wheels (COWs) from the three telecom carriers to reestablish
    communications, we felt that there was a need to expand that.
        We had the largest deployment of Starlink satellites 56
    hours after landfall to restore connectivity to Floridians to
    begin the recovery process. Grocery stores, pharmacies to
    establish communications to manage your inventories, and to
    bring that service to Floridians in need.
        Senator Moody. Thank you so much, and we look forward to
    continuing your great service to the United States of America.
    Know a lot of leaders coming out of the great free State of
    Florida, and we are proud of you, sir.
        I would like to also turn my attention now to Ed O'Connell.
    Welcome. You are nominated to serve on the Superior Court of
    the District of Columbia. As a former judge myself for over a
    decade, I know what goes into serving in a trial court when you
    are dealing with criminal matters, civil matters, family law
    matters, probate matters, very important to this country and to
    the jurisdiction you will be serving specifically, is
    efficiency in court.
        The delay sometimes denies justice to the litigants that
    come before it. What is your approach to maintaining efficiency
    within a court as a judge?
        Mr. O'Connell. Thank you, Senator. The superior court of
    the District of Columbia is extraordinarily overburdened. There
    are not enough judges on that court to move the caseload as it
    needs to be moved. I view my role as a new judge on that court
    as one of the most important things I would have to do is
    manage a caseload expeditiously without sacrificing
    thoroughness with regard to any one individual case.
        I think the unique training that I have had enables me to
    succeed at that role and that training was being an Assistant
    United States Attorney in the Superior Court system for almost
    20 years. Part of my job as an AUSA, was to efficiently manage
    an extraordinarily high caseload without sacrificing the
    individualized attention due to any particular case.
        Senator Moody. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Chairman Paul. Senator Peters.
        Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Fox you wrote in
    your opening statement that you will be 'independent,
    impartial, and fair? Which as we discussed in my office, is a
    core responsibility of the job of independent counsel. Yet you
    accepted a senior advisor position in the Office of the
    Director of National Intelligence from Director Gabbard, after
    you knew that she had put your name forward for the role of
    Inspector General.
        You are also now Acting Chief of the Information Management
    Office at ODNI. My question for you sir is, how can we or the
    employees of the intelligence community trust that you will
    indeed be independent, impartial, and fair when you chose to
    work in the very office so that you are nominated to oversee?
        Mr. Fox. Thank you for the question, Senator. Thank you
    again for taking the time to meet with me. I appreciate our
    conversation. Being a truthful and being independent are my top
    priorities as the Inspector General if confirmed. I was chosen
    for the role of senior advisor and ultimately for the role of
    Inspector General, I believe, because of my reputation for
    doing so. I only took this role as senior advisor, which in
    reality is just a title.
        My duties have been to perform as Acting Chief of the
    Information Management Office, which is overseeing the release
    of records to the public for FOIA Requests, Privacy Act and we
    have a number of other groups. I am dedicated to transparency
    and rebuilding public trust.
        One thing I would like to add is, since day one, the entire
    leadership team has understood the importance of that
    independence. For that purpose, I have been properly insulated
    from any personnel decisions or any significant organizational
    decisions to the extent that if I am in a meeting and one of
    these topics arises, I will literally leave the room. They have
    respected that and supported that effort.
        Senator Peters. You shared with me the same information in
    my office, which I appreciated, but it's still, I believe,
    raises serious questions about some judgment as to why you
    would take that position, given your background. As Senator
    Moreno highlighted with his questions, CISA 2015 is a critical
    law that provides liability protections to businesses that
    share threat information with the Federal Government and each
    other.
        These authorities play a key role in coordinating public
    private responses to cyber incidents, including the recent
    vault and salt typhoon attacks. Mr. Plankey I am pleased with
    the answer that you gave to my colleague. It was very thorough.
    I think it was pretty clear you fully support the
    reauthorization of that legislation as to how critical it is. I
    understand Secretary Noem also fully supports the
    reauthorization of that as well.
        We are heading toward the deadline here at the end of
    September, so we have to take action before that time. Mr.
    Chair I know you and I have spoken about this on numerous
    occasions, and look forward to working with you in the weeks
    ahead as we look at this deadline and trying to get legislation
    passed to make sure that those authorities are continued to be
    there.
        Thank you for your support. If confirmed, I would hope to
    deliver a bill that allows you to continue to work with all of
    the partners necessary to provide cybersecurity in this
    country.
        Mr. Fox, I am very concerned about Signal Gate, both the
    sharing of classified information on commercial messaging app
    and the implication that those records have not been retained
    as they should have been. In our meeting on Tuesday, you
    reiterated that nothing classified was shared because the
    Defense Secretary, who is the original classification authority
    of the information, has confirmed that the messages were not
    classified.
        Yet, just yesterday, after you and I met, the Washington
    Post reported that the information Secretary Hegseth shared
    came from an email marked secret. You know exactly what that
    means. Secret is classified information that should not be
    shared with foreign allies.
        My question for you, will it be your stance as IG if
    confirmed, that the Secretary can simply retroactively say that
    operational battle plans involving men and women in uniform are
    not classified, and thus try to avoid the consequences of
    sharing them in an unclassified manner?
        Mr. Fox. Thank you for the question, Senator. With my IMO
    role, when we review information for classification, a part of
    that involves a line-by-line review. If a document is marked
    secret, for example it's likely that there are portions within
    that document, they may be unclassified entirely. I cannot
    speak to this because I am not aware of the facts and
    circumstances.
        I would also like to add that National Defense Information
    and Department of Defense (DOD) information would be
    originating from DOD, and thus DOD would be the appropriate
    entity to make any determination for that. That being said, to
    answer your question, as IG have confirmed nobody is above the
    law, and I am committed to conducting every single activity of
    the Inspector General's office in an impartial manner without
    fear of favor.
        Senator Peters. Good. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Chairman Paul. Senator Scott.

                   OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SCOTT

        Senator Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chair. First, I thank all of
    you for being here. Congratulations on your nominations. Our
    country faces numerous threats in the work you are nominated to
    do, as essential to supporting President Trump's mission of
    protecting American lives and infrastructure against the
    threats of Communist China, Russia, and more.
        Under both the Obama and Biden presidencies, we saw our
    intelligence community and other agencies weakened and
    weaponize against its own citizens, putting Americans at risk.
    We have seen policies put in place at undermine the agency's
    credibility and attempt to enforce security at the expense of
    hardworking Americans.
        Thankfully, we have President Trump back in office. He and
    his administration take the threat that Xi Jinping and others
    pose her country very seriously, and he knows too well the
    experience of intelligence agencies being weaponized for
    political purposes. With no one being held accountable.
        Let me ask Mr. Fox the first question. We have known for
    years that both the Obama and Biden administrations weaponized
    every element of the Federal Government against President
    Trump, including the intelligence community. Just last week,
    Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard released over
    100 declassified documents that she said, provided overwhelming
    evidence of a treasonous and conspiracy by senior Obama
    officials, administration officials to undermined President
    Trump's 2016 election.
        If confirmed, how would you prioritize reviewing the
    actions of our intelligence agencies during the 2016
    transition? How would you ensure your office's full
    independence when investigating current and former senior
    government officials?
        Mr. Fox. Thank you for the question, Senator. I share the
    priorities of this administration and the director of
    rebuilding public trust, and there's a lot involved in that
    effort. If confirmed as ICIG, then I will take every action as
    appropriate to properly investigate or conduct audits and
    inspections as needed, aligned with the national intelligence
    priorities as best we can. Of course, consistent with
    congressionally directed actions.
        Senator Scott. Based on the evidence Ms. Gabbard put out,
    what reforms or safeguards would you advocate to prevent any
    future political weaponization of the intelligence community?
        Mr. Fox. That's a complex answer, Senator, and I appreciate
    it. Step one would be a zero-based review, if confirmed to
    understand the roles and responsibilities within the office,
    and make sure we have the right people in the right position
    with the right tools and the right intent.
        The ICIG is a cross-cutting office, so it does have the
    authority to oversee all 18 IC elements, and I would work with
    the ICIG forum to ensure that we are working together as
    appropriate and ensuring that the watchers are conducting their
    oversight in each element of the IC appropriately and fully.
        Senator Scott. Thank you. My next question is for Mr.
    Allende and Mr. Plankey. In May, U.S. Department of Energy
    officials found secret communication equipment inside Chinese
    made devices like power inverters, which are used throughout
    the United States and the world to connect solar panels and
    wind turbines to electricity grids. Are also found in
    batteries, heat pumps, and electric vehicle chargers.
        The Biden administration recklessly rescinded Trump's first
    term Executive Order (EO) that banned Chinese procurement or
    involvement in the U.S. power grid. I know this administration
    has restored that EO and I have previously filed a bill to
    codify that. Does the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) have a kill
    switch embedded in our power grid through our use of Chinese
    renewable energy infrastructure, like solar panels and Chinese
    batteries, and how we combat this and make sure we are not
    procuring China Compulsory Certification (CCC) made energy
    infrastructure. Mr. Allende if you will, go first.
        Mr. Allende. Thank you, Senator. Thank you for your
    question. At present, I am not in the Department of Homeland
    Security. I do not currently have any insights into that
    matter. If confirmed, however, I look forward to studying that
    very deeply with the experts at the directorate of science and
    technology.
        I can tell you that based on public reports, that is a
    concern that we have had in Florida, and we have taken action.
    We have started some work with Idaho National Laboratory to
    assess battery technology, which will include the inverters and
    solar panels. We previously conducted an operational technology
    (OT) security assessment of Florida's locks and levies and the
    Florida legislature in the 2023 session banned the use of
    Chinese drones, which our department effectuated regulations to
    ban those.
        Those were ultimately sent to the University of South
    Florida for testing for those very issues that you are
    describing. I am just not aware of the results of those tests.
        Mr. Plankey. Senator thank you for your question. I share
    the concern of you and my colleague, and we worked together in
    the original Trump 45 administration on this very issue. We are
    both concerned. I am concerned. If confirmed, that it will be a
    priority of mine to remove all Chinese intrusions,
    exploitations, or infestation into the American supply chain.
    Yes, Senator and I look forward to working with you on that.
        Senator Scott. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Chairman Paul. Senator Hassan.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HASSAN

        Senator Hassan. I thank you, Mr. Chair and Ranking Member
    Peters for holding this important hearing. I thank all of the
    nominees for your willingness to serve and congratulations to
    you and your families, and I think your families for their
    support as well.
        I am going to start with a simple question, and we will go
    right down the line from Mr. Allende to Mr. O'Connell. 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. Allende.
        Mr. Allende. Senator, thank you for your question. If
    confirmed, I find it very unlikely that the President or anyone
    acting on his behalf would ever instruct me to break the law. I
    do not believe that would ever happen.
        Senator Hassan. But if it did?
        Mr. Allende. If it did as unlikely as that would be, I
    would consult with the Office of General Counsel (OGC) as to
    the interpretation of the law. If persists, for some reason I
    disagreed with the interpretation, I would resign.
        Senator Hassan. Are you committed to following the law or
    not?
        Forget for the minute who instructs you to follow the law
    or whether there's a difference of opinion. Are you committed
    to following the law or not?
        Mr. Allende. I am Senator.
        Senator Hassan. Thank you. That's a yes, Mr. Plankey.
        Mr. Plankey. Thank you, Senator. I share my colleagues'
    process that I do not believe the President would ever ask me
    to violate the law, but I do believe in upholding the rule of
    law. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Hassan. Thank you, Mr. Fox.
        Mr. Fox. Senator, in my professional capacity now, and if
    confirmed as ICIG, I will always follow the law.
        Senator Hassan. Thank you, Mr. O'Connell.
        Mr. O'Connell. Thank you, Senator. As a judge on the D.C.
    Superior Court, my only job would be to follow the law, and I
    could not anticipate any circumstance where anyone, the
    President of the United States or anybody else, would try to
    influence me to do anything other than follow the law.
        Senator Hassan. I appreciate your commitment to following
    the law. I will say to those of you who have just said out loud
    that you do not believe or expect the President of the United
    States to instruct you to break the law, that reflects a
    disconnection from reality. That concerns me. I know you may
    have to say those things to satisfy the President or the people
    who are watching this hearing on his behalf, but it's an
    extraordinary statement given events.
        Now, Mr. Plankey, as you know, CISA helps State and local
    governments improve their cybersecurity and protect critical
    assets. One of the key programs that supports this goal is the
    State and local cybersecurity grant program. This program
    provides grants to State and local governments to bolster their
    cybersecurity and better protect Americans from hostile actors
    and cyber criminals. Unfortunately, this program runs out of
    money in September.
        My question to you, Mr. Plankey, is do you support
    continued funding for the State and local cybersecurity grant
    program? What would the impact be should Congress fail to fund
    it?
        Mr. Plankey. Senator, thank you for that question. I
    absolutely support State and local grant program for
    cybersecurity. I think there's many rural areas of America, and
    CISA exists to support all Americans across the United States,
    and one of the best ways to do that is through the State and
    local grant program.
        Senator Hassan. I appreciate that it's not, in a State like
    New Hampshire, 234 cities and towns, many of them very small,
    they just do not have the resources. Of course, the bigger
    impact, it's not only on each individual city or town or county
    but it also the weakest link in cyber impacts everybody. I
    would really appreciate working with you on that.
        Mr. Allende, under the 2024 DHS artificial intelligence
    (AI) Roadmap, the Science and Technology (S&T) Directorate is
    set to build out the infrastructure needed to evaluate the risk
    that terrorists and criminals could misuse powerful AI models,
    right? So just this past week, OpenAI released a new model that
    for the first time, they classified as having a high capability
    of producing biological harm, including dangerous pathogens.
        Given these very real risks to our national security, I
    would like to hear from you about how you would prioritize
    specific types of AI risk as Under Secretary of Science and
    Technology, and how would you approach that prioritization?
        Mr. Allende. Senator, thank you for your question. For
    background, I am an attorney and a manager. I have a very
    strong technical interest, and I study the material, but I am
    not a scientist or an engineer. If confirmed, however the
    Director of Science and Technology has a number of experts
    within that I would consult on this matter.
        I can say that the kinds of models matter, whether its
    smart language small language models open and closed. That gets
    very granular. I am very happy to work with you and your team
    to discuss each of those options and how each one could be
    managed in a very granular way.
        Senator Hassan. Are you concerned about the risk that AI
    poses?
        Mr. Allende. Senator, thank you for your question. I am. In
    Florida, we have actually taken it upon ourselves at the
    department to build an AI use policy and to start addressing
    those very risks both on the privacy aspects of what can be
    disclosed to a model and how to responsibly use a model?
        Senator Hassan. You must have some experience then in
    prioritizing what kind of risks you are looking at? My
    question, this is urgent. I mean, this is a national security
    and public safety matter, and it is an urgent one. We have open
    AI saying they have now got an AI that is highly capable of
    producing biological harm. This is on our doorstep. It's a
    national security issue. Do you feel urgency about it? What's
    your plan to make sure that you are focused on the most serious
    threats?
        Mr. Allende. Senator, I absolutely feel urgency behind it.
    The scope of what the Department of Management Services and
    what the Director of Science and Technology were very
    different. I cannot relate one to the other.
        Senator Hassan. How are you qualified for the job?
        Mr. Allende. Senator, my background as a lawyer has
    involved highly technical matters such as cybersecurity. I
    started the cybersecurity practice for my law firm. I have a
    Master's in decision information science. I have a long history
    of working with very smart folks such as scientists, engineers,
    and data analysts, to bring those methodologies to bear on the
    problems that we have at the Department of Management Services.
        I am very happy and comfortable working with people much
    smarter than I, and enabling them to do the job that they need
    to do.
        Senator Hassan. I am over time. I will follow up with you,
    but perhaps I can make this observation. This is not
    necessarily about how smart people are although that helps.
    This is about whether technologists, who are engaged in this
    kind of work, understand the risks and are willing to put some
    guardrails up and willing to prioritize how we go after making
    sure that these risks do not impact our national security and
    public safety. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Chairman Paul. I think the question of whether we follow
    the law is an important question. Obviously, we should always
    follow the law. I think what makes it a more difficult question
    is we all know that you are not supposed to steal, you are not
    supposed to commit fraud, but if the President orders you to
    fire 10 percent of your people, is he breaking the law? There
    have been accusations made by the minority party that the
    President's authorizing people to break the law. So it's a
    question, can the President hire and fire people?
        It's gone all the way to the Supreme Court now, and Supreme
    Court is siding with them. We have to be careful about accusing
    the President and saying, the President's ordering his people
    to break the law. Because actually the court so far has sided
    with him on that. The court may not side with him on
    everything, but that's why we have courts, and it is
    complicated.
        When Mr. Allende responds that he would ask the counsel.
    He's probably a little bit removed from the President. He has
    to ask for counsel on it. If you feel that the President doing
    the resigning is sort of ultimately the answer on this, it
    isn't. I would just argue not as always as simple as we say--
    follow the law--when there's a dispute over the law.
        We are probably going to have more separation of power
    issues decided under President Trump because he pushes the
    envelope than any President in our history. And you can argue
    that's good or bad, but the courts have so far sided with him
    on the hiring and firing that that's not illegal.
        Senator Hassan. No. My respectful dissent from some of your
    characterizations, Mr. Chair. Thank you.
        Chairman Paul. Senator Ernst.

                   OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ERNST

        Senator Ernst. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Congratulations
    to our nominees for being here today and for your willingness
    to serve. We thank your families as well. Mr. Plankey, I am
    going to start with you. We have behind me a chart,\1\ and it's
    quite lovely here. But it is something symbolic, but it is
    important. The blue outer ring and the inner red ring represent
    the unity with DHS and the commitment to cut through government
    red tape.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The chart submitted by Senator Ernst appears in the Appendix on
    page 210.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        However, Federal agencies have been tied up in knots with
    outdated technology and many bureaucratic hurdles. Currently,
    the Federal Government maintains over 10,000 unique forms and
    processes, approximately 125 billion forms annually. That
    volume isn't just a paperwork problem; it's a symptom of deeply
    antiquated systems that are ranging anywhere from eight to 50
    years old. Unfortunately, modernization efforts so often become
    boondoggles.
        Take the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM's) attempt to
    modernize its oil and gas activity tracking, which ballooned to
    three times the projected cost. It was four years late, and it
    added 565,000 labor hours resulting in $19 million of
    productivity losses. Outdated technology also leaves the
    Federal Government dangerously exposed.
        Mr. Plankey, as CISA successfully assists State and local
    critical infrastructure to meet current cybersecurity
    protections, what will you do to ensure the Federal Government
    isn't falling behind while helping others catch up?
        Mr. Plankey. Thank you for that question, Senator. I was
    nervous you were going to ask me about the logo as we could
    change that if you want. [Laughter.]
        Senator Ernst. We might have to work on that.
        Mr. Plankey. Roger that.
        Senator Ernst. After we fix these problems.
        Mr. Plankey. Yes, ma'am. Senator, one of the ways I like to
    attack the problem as somebody who has worked in private
    industry from startups to fortune 10 companies, I think too
    often we love to focus on how we fix a problem.
        Basically, when you are fixing something in the private
    sector business you are stopping the bleeding, right? You stop
    the decremental decrease of what you are trying to process. The
    problem is you really actually need to grow or change the
    service, right? You need to make a shift in what you do and
    change the way that you approach the problem set to deliver
    something better, in this case for the taxpayer.
        When you focus on fix, all you are doing is stopping the
    bleeding. What I would like to focus on, and what I have done
    in my technical experience is wholesale changes. Instead of
    investing more in bad processes and policies or making small
    adjustment, micro changes, in a process that is outdated to
    begin with, we will invest in wholesale changes and move
    forward to deliver better outcomes for the American taxpayer.
        Senator Ernst. That's outstanding. I appreciate that. Let's
    stop doubling down, spending additional money where we do not
    have to. It's just throwing money out the window. I am going to
    move on to Mr. Fox. Your job ensures whistleblowers can trust
    the system they are reporting into.
        As you know, last Friday, the Director of National
    Intelligence declassified documents exposing what she called 'a
    treasonous conspiracy, carried out by some of the highest-
    ranking officials in our Nation to weaponize the intelligence
    community against the incoming President of the United States.
    Framing him as being the agent of a foreign government. We know
    today that it was all a made-up lie. This carried real costs.
        The House of Representative impeached the President in part
    over accusations built on fiction. Taxpayers were stuck with a
    $32 million bill for Miller's witch hunt. Trust in our
    intelligence apparatus was undermined and despite all of this,
    the American people saw through the lies and reelected
    President Trump last November.
        Let me be clear, weaponizing government against political
    opponents is un-American. Mr. Fox, will you commit to turning
    over every rock, regardless of how uncomfortable or
    embarrassing the truth may be for the intelligence community?
        Mr. Fox. Thank you for addressing this, Senator.
    Absolutely, that is what I have been asked to do.
        Senator Ernst. Do you agree that the intelligence community
    should be impartial, apolitical, and never weaponized against
    U.S. citizens or the leaders they choose?
        Mr. Fox. Absolutely, Senator.
        Senator Ernst. Thank you very much for your straightforward
    answers. Thank you all very much, and congratulations on your
    nominations.
        Chairman Paul. Senator Lankford.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANKFORD

        Senator Lankford. Mr. Chair, thank you. Thank you all for
    going through the process. It's not a fun process to be able to
    do the preparation, all everything else that you have done, and
    then be able to go through this. I appreciate your dedication
    to the country and your willingness to be able to serve.
        Mr. O'Connell, I wanted to ask you a question because you
    are getting left alone all the time on this. I want to be able
    to just zero in on it. You have served in officer of the
    Inspector General in the past. You have served as a prosecutor
    in the past. Stepping into one of the roles as a judge here in
    D.C. is an incredibly important role.
        But my concern is always that people get access to justice.
    One of the challenges that we have had is attorneys are not
    prepared when they walk in and they ask for an extension, they
    ask us for more time. Your judges just keep giving that, the
    person who's trying to get to justice can never get to justice.
    The family that's the victim can never get an answer there
    because everything gets delayed.
        How are you going to run your courtroom in such a way to be
    able to make sure people actually get to justice in a timely
    manner?
        Mr. O'Connell. Thank you for the question, Senator. I
    certainly do not take it personally. These are important issues
    that are being addressed. My experience as an Assistant U.S.
    Attorney in the Superior Court division of the of the U.S.
    Attorney's Office here in D.C., I encountered it frequently
    where defense counsel was not prepared for trial, not prepared
    to proceed.
        I think the judges of the Superior Court, who was
    successful at managing those caseloads, were able to use a
    number of tools to ensure that to hold accountable counsel who
    were unprepared. Certainly, this was done with the interest of
    the clients of those counsel. Judges have to ensure that
    litigants, especially criminal defendants, are adequately
    represented.
        A number of tools were used by judges. Certainly. when an
    assistant U.S. Attorney would be unprepared, the judge would
    outright dismiss their case. That was a circumstance that
    nobody ever wanted to encounter as a prosecutor. I think it's a
    broader question. I think that you are asking about the volume
    of cases in D.C. Superior Court. It's overwhelmingly
    overburdened. There are, not enough judges and there are too
    many cases, right?
        Senator Lankford. But there's an expectation that when the
    case comes to the court, the attorneys are prepared, the case
    is going to get heard rather than just one more delay. One more
    delay. If folks are actually ready to be able to get to the
    courtroom, the folks that are there seeking justice can
    actually get it.
        Mr. O'Connell. That's exactly right.
        Senator Lankford. I appreciate that. Fox, I want to be able
    to drill down, thank you for stepping in this role as well.
    Your job is a tough one. Your work for Congress, Congress is
    one who established the Inspector General. We have an
    expectation that you are the eyes and the ears of this U.S.
    Congress. To the intelligence community, you also work for the
    White House, and you work for the Office of the Director of
    National Intelligence. Ultimately, you work for the American
    people.
        Your job is to be able to oversee people that literally, we
    hire them to go steal secrets from other places and be as
    clandestine as possible. That's a tough job to say, we need you
    to go in and make sure that this is being done correctly.
        Let me ask you a couple questions of that. No. 1 is, we
    cannot have our secrets stolen. If there are processes in place
    that lead to somebody that's a contractor or an individual
    that's hired, that's taking our secrets, part of the
    responsibility, that's the Inspector General, to be able to
    look over our own shoulder, to be able to make sure that we
    have processes in place to prevent that.
        What are you going to do to make sure our secrets aren't
    being stolen? How are you going to engage in that way?
        Mr. Fox. Thank you for that question, Senator. I share your
    concern. It's very important across all 18 elements, that we
    are simpatico in this effort to protect our secrets, while also
    maintaining appropriate transparency with the public. That is a
    balancing act in some ways.
        When it comes to holding individuals accountable for
    leaking information or selling information to a foreign power,
    there are a number of steps that we can take, hopefully to
    deter that activity in the first place. That's something I am
    prepared to look at as the IG. I cannot commit to it now, given
    our many different priorities. I would have to look at the work
    plan and understand the resources we have available and the
    other congressionally directed actions. But I will stand ready
    to address that issue for the entire IC.
        Senator Lankford. OK. We look forward to Mr. Plankey,
    thanks for stepping into this role as well. The Cybersecurity
    Information Sharing Act of 2015 expires on September the 30th
    of this year. Secretary Noem has asked for its reauthorization.
    What do you see as the challenges that face the Nation if it is
    not reauthorized?
        Mr. Plankey. Senator, thank you for the question. The CISA
    act of 2015 created before CISA was created, is necessary in
    that it provides the sharing of information from business to
    business and business to government without exposing liability
    to those said parties.
        A business that has experiences an issue, a breach, detects
    an adversary, that type of information, they can share it
    without feeling pressure of liability across to other
    businesses, so that they may protect themselves and then also
    to the government, so the government may then distribute that
    information in a way that protects the greater good of America.
    That's contained in the CISA 2015 bill.
        Senator Lankford. Right. But if it expires, what happens?
        Mr. Plankey. If it expires, they lose the Liability
    Protection Authority Center.
        Senator Lankford. We will have less of that. OK, sir. Thank
    you.
        Chairman Paul. Senator Hawley.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HAWLEY

        Senator Hawley. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Congratulations to
    the nominees. Thank you for being here. Mr. Plankey, if I could
    just start with you.
        One of the most troubling things that we have seen in the
    last few years when it comes to behavior by the government, is
    the effort by the Federal Government to coerce and otherwise
    pressure social media companies to engage in mass censorship of
    private American citizens, across a range of topics,
    Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines, elections, school
    board meetings.
        Unfortunately, the agency that you have been nominated to
    lead was right in the thick of it, CISA. So much to that
    agency's shame, I must say, I think in direct violation of the
    First Amendment of the United States, because what the Supreme
    Court has said over and over is the Federal Government cannot
    use private entities to do what the First Amendment bars the
    Federal Government from doing. As you probably know, there's
    been much litigation about this.
        The discovery in that litigation is damning for many
    agencies in the Federal Government, including CISA. My question
    is, what are you going to do to ensure that CISA gets out of
    the speech regulation business, the surveillance business when
    it comes to private American citizens, and gets back into what
    it's supposed to do, which is actually to keep us safe, not to
    regulate our speech, not to follow us around online, but to be
    stopping cyber-attacks and ensuring cybersecurity.
        Mr. Plankey. Senator, thank you for that question which I
    believe to be an important one. And so does Secretary Noem and
    President Trump. It is not CISA's job and nor is it in its
    authorities to censor or determine the truths whether it be on
    social media or in any level of media.
        CISA will not do any of that work will not be a part of any
    of that work. If I am confirmed, I would like to focus CISA on
    what it's mandated to do, and that's to protect the Federal
    Civilian Executive Branch, as well as protect the critical
    infrastructure of the United States. Cybersecurity's a big
    enough problem. We have adversaries at our door, inside our
    house and all over us every day.
        If confirmed, I need my people at CISA to be focused on
    eradicating those adversaries from the Federal Government
    computer systems, as well as critical infrastructure of the
    United States.
        Senator Hawley. Let me just read some of the euphemisms
    that your predecessor used to talk about CISA's mission and the
    censorship effort. Narrative control, perception management,
    information integrity-that one is my favorite. You are telling
    me you are going to get CISA out of the business of policing
    narrative control.
        I mean, narrative control? Good lord. I mean, what could be
    more Orwellian than that? A Federal Government, the most
    powerful government in the world engaged in narrative control?
    Your testimony here is that you will get CISA out of this
    business. You will comply with the First Amendment to the
    Constitution of the United States, and you will not engage in
    censorship of American citizens of any kind. Am I understanding
    you correctly?
        Mr. Plankey. Senator, put it bluntly, yes. You are
    understanding me correctly.
        Senator Hawley. Good. Let's talk about what that's going to
    look like in the election context. Obviously, CISA has
    important election security work, protecting our election
    infrastructure, that's important work, that's designated by
    statute. That however, is different than monitoring political
    speech and monitoring political campaigns.
        Tell us how you are going to make the line clear between
    cybersecurity protections for our elections and political
    content moderation, which again, is unfortunately which your
    agency has been involved in in recent years.
        Mr. Plankey. Senator, thank you for that question. CISA's
    role in election security is a sub-sector of critical
    infrastructure.
        The President has already given guidance on this in his
    recent Executive Order. That guidance says that the Department
    of Homeland Security will focus on electronic election system,
    so electroencephalography (EEG), like a voting system that
    Americans might use to vote to ensure their vote is assessed
    prior to an election, and that no adversarial actions or
    vulnerabilities are on it.
        Now that is tasked in the President's Executive Order that
    he has already thought of, down to DHS. If Secretary Noem
    tasked CISA to do that, which I could imagine she likely will,
    my team if confirmed, will focus on the assessments of that
    election infrastructure.
        Senator Hawley. Good. Everything you said to me is
    encouraging. I am glad to hear it. I know that you appreciate
    that CISA has a major trust deficit, given what's happened in
    the last four years. That's a problem because, we have gone so
    far in this body, there are tasks that frankly CISA ought to be
    performing, including things related to like the security of
    rural hospitals, which is very important to me, very important
    to my State. Forty percent of the hospitals in my State are
    rural. We need the cybersecurity help.
        But frankly, we have been very reluctant to use CISA for
    any of this because CISA has been a surveillance and censorship
    machine for the last four years. This has to stop. We have to
    get this agency back on track, and I hope that you are the
    right person to do it. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Chairman Paul. Senator Slotkin.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SLOTKIN

        Senator Slotkin. Thank you for being here. I understand
    this was raised before, but Mr. Fox you have been nominated, to
    be Inspector General of the entire intelligence community.
    Having relationships with Inspector Generals and providing that
    objective stand back investigation into really important
    questions of integrity in the intelligence community. I am a
    former CIA officer, so this is important to me.
        I think if we expect you to do that behind closed doors, we
    have to know that you are going to be objective. What is your
    assessment of whether classified information was shared in the
    Signal Gate exchange? Was there classified information that you
    are aware of, placed on an unclassified system and shared with
    the journalist?
        Mr. Fox. Thank you for the question, Senator. I agree with
    you that it's very important that we protect our sensitive
    information. To my knowledge, the Secretary of Defense, who is
    the original classifier authority (OCA), on the content from
    DOD, determined that it was unclassified. In my capacity as the
    Acting Chief of Information Management at ODNI, our practice is
    to defer to other agencies for information originating out of
    those agencies.
        Senator Slotkin. OK. Even though we now have a report that
    that information was directly taken from a document labeled
    ``SECRET'' ``Not Releasable to Foreign Nationals (NOFORN), with
    no declassification process that I have heard of formally going
    on, you believe that just because the Secretary of Defense was
    the Secretary of Defense, he got to declassify it just by
    putting it on Signal Gate?
        Mr. Fox. I am not familiar Senator with DODs policies when
    it comes to declassifying or determining the classification of
    information.
        Senator Slotkin. That's a strong statement to say that I am
    not familiar with DODs processes, but you are saying it's
    unclassified. First of all, I want you to be familiar. If you
    are going to be the Inspector General, you are going to have to
    weigh in on a million of these cases when people rank and file
    officers, leak information.
        I would just say it's hard to understand how the senior
    officer in charge of inspections and investigations on this
    issue can't speak clearly about how a potential leak of
    classified information is bad, and to be not familiar with the
    procedures is concerning.
        Let me ask another question related to the reporting. I
    believe you are right now the senior advisor to Tulsi Gabbard,
    is that correct?
        Mr. Fox. My title is Senior Advisor, but I am performing
    the capacity of Acting Chief of Information Management,
    Senator.
        Senator Slotkin. Got it. I guess what I am having trouble
    understanding is in the past couple of days there's been
    reports out that your current boss has put forward going after
    Barack Obama and a bunch of reporting from I think nine years
    ago now, on the exact same day that President Trump's name
    appeared in the Wall Street Journal as being in the Epstein
    files, the exact same day.
        It is hard to imagine that in the four-years of the Trump
    administration, previously, in the six-months leading up to
    now, when there's been plenty of time for your boss, for you
    all and your front office to refer these issues to the
    Department of Justice (DOJ), you picked the exact same day that
    the President knew he was going to be named as being in the
    files of a known pedophile, right? A known sexual offender.
        Can you help me understand why, because my 10-year-old
    nephew understands that that was a distraction. That we were
    talking about something that was 10 years old on the exact day
    that the President did not want to be talking about his name
    being in those files. Can you answer for that?
        Mr. Fox. Senator, I really appreciate the opportunity to
    address this. The declassification process is lengthy and it's
    significant, and we have an excellent team of officers
    working----
        Senator Slotkin. Wait a minute, you just said that
    Secretary Hegseth could declassify under his authority and put
    out on public information, a piece of SECRET NOFORN
    information. So that took seconds. I have seen Presidents do
    this. I am a CIA officer; Presidents can declassify very
    quickly.
        Are you saying that the reason why Tulsi Gabbard made that
    decision to announce yesterday, or whatever it was two days
    ago, was because of a lengthy declassification process? You are
    talking to a CIA officer who's watched those things happen.
    Please tell me how in the four-years of the Trump
    administration, previously it did not get done, but yesterday
    it got done?
        Mr. Fox. Senator, I appreciate that question and your
    service as a clandestine officer. These documents are reviewed
    very carefully and redacted as needed to protect sensitive
    sources and methods. That's not an overnight process.
        Chairman Paul. Time has expired.
        Senator Slotkin. Thank you. Sorry.
        Chairman Paul. We are getting close to the end. Senator
    Peters.
        Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Allende, I have
    introduced bipartisan legislation to establish a pilot program
    with very strict Federal oversight that would permit some
    State, local, tribal, and territorial (SLTT) law enforcement
    agencies to conduct operations to counter drone threats that
    are going to continue to be a persistent challenge for us.
        My question for you is, if confirmed as the Under Secretary
    for S&T, how would you help ensure that these law enforcement
    agencies have access to the safest, most effective technology
    necessary to accomplish this mission?
        Mr. Allende. Senator, thank you for your question. I share
    your concern. In Florida, drones are something that we have a
    great deal of concern about. Within our portfolio at the
    Department of Management Services, we have the Florida
    Facilities Pool, which includes the capital and the Governor's
    mansion. Those are two very sensitive subjects for us
    particularly when someone's flying a drone that should be
    unauthorized.
        If confirmed, in the context of your question in the
    Federal space, my first step would be to get with the
    components in the law enforcement space, particularly those
    within DHS at the first instance, to understand what their
    needs, gaps and wants would be to support their critical
    operations.
        Then, work with the experts within the Director of Science
    and Technology to bring to bear already available technologies,
    technologies that can be incrementally modified to very quickly
    adjust to those needs, and if needed, specialized research.
    Although I think in the drone space, we have seen a lot of
    breadth in the market. So, I would probably lean very heavily
    on the first two.
        Senator Peters. Very good. We have a lot more than that, so
    I will look forward if indeed confirmed that we have to have
    further conversation on this. We are way behind in our
    abilities to protect the American people, the homeland and need
    to take aggressive actions.
        Mr. Plankey, CISA has a number of statutory requirements
    such as Critical Infrastructure Protection Stipulations under
    Homeland Security Act, national communications, infrastructure
    security mandates. You are well aware of the long list of
    responsibilities that are there. There's been some questions
    about focus of CISA and we can debate the past, but it was you
    know, I think it was a unit there, folks are concerned about
    that had 15 people out of 3,000 people that work at CISA. From
    what I have heard from Secretary Noem, she says, this is back
    on mission. It's ready to protect our country from cyber
    threats. We have to lean in to make this happen.
        You are fully aware of the threats that we have. You
    understand the significant nature of them and how they are
    persistent, and we need resources to deal with it. My question
    for you is, how would you ensure that all of the agency's
    statutory requirements are met? Given potentially millions of
    dollars in budget cuts that we are seeing and hundreds of
    personnel leaving that agency.
        You are walking into an agency that's critically important
    and it's being cutoff at the knees, because some of alleged
    things that may have happened in the past but are not occurring
    now according to the Secretary.
        Mr. Plankey. Yes, Senator. Thank you for that statement.
    One of the ways that I have found that's most effective to when
    you come in to lead an organization is to allow the operators
    to operate, right? CISA has a number of the most capable
    cybersecurity people in the world. If confirmed, like to get
    into that, provide them the direction, tell them what I would
    say is the hill we are going to take, charge up and protect the
    American public from cybersecurity tax on critical
    infrastructure, in State and local areas, mom and pop small
    businesses, but then also the Federal Civilian Executive
    Branch.
        I am going to empower those operators to operate and do the
    best they can. If that means we have to reorganize in some form
    or fashion, that's what we will do. I will lead that charge. If
    that means that we need a different level of funding than we
    currently have now, then I will approach the Secretary, ask for
    that funding, ask for that support.
        I am heartened by her understanding of the Department of
    Homeland Security and where she's applied her resources. As you
    can see her and under the President's leadership, they have
    seen that the United States Coast Guard needed resources and
    they provided those. I have no doubt if I go to her and tell
    her we are driving in this direction to protect the American
    public, she will work under the President's leadership to then
    work with Congress to get us the funds we need.
        Senator Peters. I appreciate that these are folks who are
    already working very hard. The cyber threat is increasing like
    this, and then our protection is going like that, reorganizing
    may be something to look at, but you have your Coast Guard
    experience. in the Coast Guard there are auxiliary Coast Guard
    men and women, there are reserves. We do not have that at CISA.
        We cannot call up the Cyber Protection Reserves to come in
    to help us because the bad guys are coming at us with
    everything they have. I would hope if confirmed, you are really
    focused on the resource needs and have the willingness to step
    up and tell folks, no, this is really important, and as a
    committee we need to be engaged to back you up, not just from a
    funding, but any other additional authorities that you need. I
    hope you make that commitment to me now.
        Mr. Plankey. Yes, sir. You have that commitment.
    Absolutely.
        Senator Peters. Thanks.
        Chairman Paul. Thank you all for your testimony. As we come
    to a close, I want to compliment the Trump administration and
    Secretary Noem for changing the policy on censorship. We had a
    CISA that was actually at one point in 2021, released a video
    that encouraged people to report their own family to Facebook
    if they challenge the government's narrative on COVID-19. Turns
    out many of the things the government said turned out not to be
    true.
        The things people have as far as opinions on medicine,
    vaccines, masks, a lot of times there are simply opinions. In
    fact, almost always are opinions, and you can hear both sides
    of these things, but I compliment you for stopping this, but
    realize it's only temporary until the next administration.
        The way to make it permanent is when we reauthorize CISA.
    Everybody's been talking, they want see CISA reauthorized, all
    right, we will do it, but we are going to put in their anti-
    censorship language, and we need to make this part of the law.
    It already is the law. It's called the First Amendment. But we
    need to specifically prohibit CISA from getting involved in
    political speech.
        People on the other side immediately respond and they say,
    what about sex trafficking and this and that? That's against
    the law. That's not constitutionally protected speech. Crimes
    CISA will still be allowed to be involved with, political
    speech they won't. I think we can separate the two.
        But I think if we add language like that, we can get some
    permanence. I am hoping we can come to a bipartisan agreement
    on this, to add language in there, keeping CISA out of this.
    It's like, to me it's simply distracts CISA from a job we want,
    not to be hacked in by foreign terrorists, et cetera, to
    protect our grid.
        All of those things are reasonable requests, but we are
    wasting time and money and simply angering, and really it pits
    us all against each other. Whether or not a cloth mask works or
    not. Is it six foot of separation or should have been 30 feet
    of separation? If you catch COVID once, can you catch it again?
    Will you die if you catch it Again? These are opinions and
    there are facts to support opinions, but CISA has got no
    business being involved in this.
        Really, they just shouldn't. There's something unseemly
    about it. The idea that agents from Department of Homeland
    Security and or the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) would
    be meeting with the media to tell them, well, we are just not
    so sure that interview where Rand Paul said, cloth masks do not
    work and we are just not sure that should be aired. That sounds
    like something you would see in a totalitarian regime. It
    really is terrible.
        But I compliment the Trump administration, Secretary Noem
    for changing it. I want everybody to know that we are going to
    reauthorize CISA, but we are going to put language in there and
    I hope it can be bipartisan language that is going to protect
    speech and protect the First Amendment.
        Thank you all for coming. The nominees have filed responses
    to biographical and financial\1\ questionnaires,\2\ answering
    pre-hearing questions\3\ submitted to the Committee and had
    their financial statements\4\ reviewed by the Office of
    Government Ethics.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The information of Mr. Allende appears in the Appendix on page
    31.
        \2\ The information of Mr. Plankey appears in the Appendix on page
    106.
        \3\ The information of Mr. Fox appears in the Appendix on page 161.
        \4\ The information of Mr. O'Connell appears in the Appendix on
    page 183.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Additionally, the Committee has received letters of
    supports for the nominees. Without objection, this information
    will be made part of the hearing record with the exception of
    the nominees financial data, which are on file with the
    Committee.
        The hearing record will remain open until noon tomorrow.
    Thank you all. We are adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 5:10 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]