FEMA, TSA nominees testify in confirmation hearing before Senate Homeland Security panel

[3:20] The hearing will come to order. Today the committee meets to consider 11 [3:24] nominations. We'll begin today with our first [3:26] panel of nominees. Hal Duncan to be the Director, Deputy [3:30] Director of the Office of Management and Budget. [3:33] Brian Kavanaugh to be the Undersecretary of Management at the Department of [3:36] Homeland Security. David Cummins to be the Administrator [3:41] of the Transportation Security Administration. [3:43] Cameron Hamilton to be the Administrator for the Federal Emergency [3:47] Management Agency. And Charles Baldus to be the Special [3:52] Counsel to the Office of Special Counsel. The witnesses written statements have [3:56] been submitted for the record and I ask unanimous consent to submit letters [4:00] of support received for the nominees. In the interest of time I will forgo [4:05] any opening remarks. Senator Peters. Thank you Mr. Chairman. [4:09] Welcome to the nominees and certainly thank you for your [4:13] willingness to serve and congratulations on your nominations. [4:18] We have a record-setting 11 nominees before the committee [4:22] today. Each for roles that impact people as well as communities [4:27] across our nation. I am very disappointed with this process [4:33] that has been unnecessarily rushed. An overcrowded lineup today severely limits [4:39] our ability to have transparency for the American public. Members of this [4:44] committee should have the opportunity to hear from and thoroughly question [4:48] each nominee in front of the American people. The chairman is not even bothering [4:55] to let the nominees make public opening statements and members of the committee [4:59] have not received their written testimony. Even more troubling the chairman has [5:05] disregarded this committee's long-standing basic requirement for nominees [5:11] appearing before us. Two of the nominees Mr. Brodsky and Mr. Ballas do have not [5:18] completed financial disclosures and ethics agreements certified [5:22] by the Office of Government Ethics. Two nominees Mr. Ballas and Mr. Hamilton have not [5:28] completed FBI background investigations. Always the minimum requirement for this [5:34] committee. The FBI review can provide a more complete picture of the nominee's picture [5:39] or of a background and integrity and the ethics review certification process is essential [5:45] for providing transparency into nominees financial interest as well as potential [5:50] conflicts of interest. This is even more critical when nominees like some of us here today [5:55] have significant financial holdings. To my knowledge it is completely unprecedented for this [6:01] committee to proceed to a hearing before these very fundamental vetting steps are complete. It has [6:08] always been that way always should be that way and the American people expect it to be that way. [6:14] And I recognize that timing is out of the nominee's control. However it does a disservice to these [6:20] nominees as well as to members of each and every one of this committee. Unfortunately it seems like these [6:25] nominees are being treated as basically just a box checking exercise rather than a core [6:32] constitutional duty. I take our responsibility to thoroughly evaluate each nominee's qualifications [6:39] seriously. And I have supported and opposed nominees based on what I have learned through this [6:45] committee process. I know that my committee colleagues on both sides of the aisle also want to [6:51] thoroughly consider each nominee before us. But when the process is this haphazard and rushed it certainly [6:59] looks like this committee's Republican majority is simply rubber stamping the president. The [7:05] Constitution is very clear of our oversight responsibilities to the Congress. And it's [7:10] very clear that this checks and balance system doesn't work if the Congress simply is a rubber stamp [7:16] for the president. And that's what we're seeing here today. Somebody who's shirking basic constitutional [7:22] responsibilities. People who claim that they protect the Constitution and yet they'll watch it get [7:26] trampled here today. Today we're considering nominees for 10 different agencies. Any one of which [7:33] could warrant its own hearing. Hearings from nominees is even more critical as this committee has been [7:39] ignoring its obligation to conduct public oversight of administration officials after they are confirmed. [7:47] Since the start of this Congress we have had only two oversight hearings where administration [7:52] officials appeared as witnesses. We have abandoned abandoned our duty to conduct oversight of our homeland [7:58] security apparatus by skipping annual hearings that were conducted by this committee for decades. For decades. [8:08] Including the annual threats hearing or hearing on the DHS budget request. We are considering two nominees [8:14] to the Postal Service Board of Governors today and I hope to hear detailed explanations of how they plan to [8:19] uphold the Postal Service's independence and public service mission if confirmed. I'm also concerned that the [8:27] president has failed to consult with the Senate minority and nominate any any Democratic members of the board. [8:34] Instead he has nominated four members of one party. The board is designated by statute to be bipartisan in nature [8:42] and lopsided political representation undermines public confidence in the board's ability to serve the public [8:50] above above partisan views. We're also considering nominees for several agencies that Congress has charged with [8:56] providing independent oversight of the executive branch. The merit systems protection board and the office of special [9:03] counsel are both critical to protecting whistleblowers and ensuring the federal workforce is free from [9:09] political coercion. The federal labor relations authority ensures federal workers collective bargaining rights are upheld. [9:17] The DOJ inspector general leads efforts to combat waste fraud and abuse across the department of justice. [9:24] As this administration continues to attack and dismantle independent oversight bodies and erode protections for [9:33] nonpartisan public servants, it's more important than ever that we have principled independent leaders [9:39] in these critical roles. Similarly, this administration has resisted and undermined all forms of transparency [9:46] and accountability, taking unprecedented steps to keep information and records hidden from Congress [9:52] and the American public. Even more troubling our actions to rewrite history through a partisan political lens. [10:00] The National Archives protects our national records and ensures that the American people have a complete and an accurate [10:06] account of our shared history as the American people. And I hope to hear an unwavering commitment of transparency in leading NARA in a nonpartisan manner from President Wilson. [10:14] Professor Wilson, excuse me. Mr. Duncan, the Office of Management and Budget has been the center of many of these administrative wide efforts to evade transparency, oversight and accountability. [10:29] Throughout the nomination process, you have emphasized your view that OMB's chief person purpose is to serve the president and his agenda. Since returning to office, this president has made clear that he does not respect Congress's [10:36] Congress's congressional role as a co-equal branch of government. So far, many of my colleagues are okay with that. They don't believe they're a co-equal branch of government. They believe that they're a rubber stamp. I get that. But flouting spending laws, ignoring oversight and manipulating all aspects of government for personal and political gain. [10:54] Today, we will have an opportunity. You will have an opportunity to explain your involvement and views on OMB's actions to the nominees to serve at the Department of Homeland Security, including FEMA and TSA. [11:13] Unfortunately, because of the way this chairman has stacked this hearing and made transparency and accountable next to impossible, I may not have time to ask questions and [11:23] ask questions of each and every one of you today. But I'd like to thank you all for your engagement through this process and I appreciate each of you have expressed a willingness to examine and reevaluate some of the decisions made by the department's prior leadership. [11:37] Mr. Cavanaugh, I particularly appreciated your commitment to reviewing the severe staffing cuts at DHS Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and ensuring the office can effectively carry out responsibilities that Congress signed into law. [11:51] So thank you again for all of you being here today. I look forward to hearing more about your nominations. [11:57] Comments, you know, are well received and listened to, but it is a fact that we will only vote on these nominees after all of their ethics reports are complete after all of their FBI backgrounds are complete. [12:15] And I would say the comments are rather rich coming from people who shut down ICE and Border Patrol and wouldn't fund one dollar for it. [12:24] So, you know, we can have different opinions here, but I would certainly think that it's irresponsible to have no border security and not to pay them. [12:32] It's the practice of this committee to swear in witnesses. Will the nominees please stand and raise your right hand? [12:37] Do you swear that the testimony you will give before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? [12:46] So help you God. It's a standard practice of this committee for the chairman to ask the nominees the following question. [12:54] Do you agree without reservation to comply with any request or summons to appear and testify before any duly constituted committee of Congress? [13:02] If you're confirmed, let's do it one at a time. Mr. Duncan, do you agree to? [13:07] Yes. Subject to the advice of counsel. Mr. Cavanaugh. Mr. Cummins. Yes. Subject to advice of counsel. Mr. Hamilton. Yes. Subject to the advice of counsel. Mr. Ballas. Yes. Subject to the advice of counsel. [13:22] We'll now proceed to questions for each member. We'll give in five minutes. I'll reserve my time and at this time recognize Senator Johnson. [13:28] No opening statements? We did them. He had his and I decided not to do one. [13:35] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Duncan, we had your hearing yesterday in the budget committee and I just thought it was, is the right word? [13:43] Certainly hypocritical of the comments from the other side questioning how grant money might be apportioned to, oh, I don't know, things that President Trump, [13:55] actually ran on, you know, his causes. Like President Biden and President Obama didn't do the exact same thing. [14:04] So I know they made a big to do about changes in the code of federal registers, something that you're really concentrating on to eliminate the waste fraud, [14:16] waste and fraud that we've been seeing. The stats I used yesterday was at a minimum $250 billion per year, [14:23] GAO, up to a trillion dollars, according to LexisNexis. I mean, and it's impossible to prosecute that and recover those funds. [14:30] You have to prevent them from going out to the front end. So can you, first of all, just address the accusations of partisan allocation of grant money? [14:41] Elections matter. And obviously you're going to provide grant money to the issues that the duly elected president are going to want to support. [14:51] But then also just talk about what we need to do to rein in fraud and prevent money ever going out the door. [14:57] Well, Senator, I certainly appreciate the question. And I would note as it relates to the adherence to administrations in the disbursement of grant money, [15:07] I was kind of struck by some of the comments because during the rescissions process, there are folks that were saying, hey, don't rescind this money. [15:15] Just spend it on things that the administration agrees with. It might have been spent on things that you didn't agree with in the past. [15:21] Why don't you just spend it on administration priorities now? So I thought that was something that struck me during that process. [15:28] But as it relates to 2 CFR Part 200 and the updates, it's fundamentally about getting our arms around the grant enterprise, [15:36] which is at a trillion dollars a year, ensuring that we have accountability. As it relates to the fraud aspects of it, [15:42] we want to mandate the use of the do not pay system. So if you're on a list that is an individual that is not able to receive federal financial assistance, [15:52] we require the agencies to check that list. If you're someone that is on the death master file or something like that, [16:00] we want to ensure that we're stopping that on the front end. Because to your point, if we don't stop fraud on the front end, [16:05] it becomes much more difficult on the back end. We also want to ensure that these grants aren't going out in a way [16:11] that advances divisive DEI ideologies, woke gender ideologies, illegal immigration, as we saw in the past administration, [16:20] and want to ensure that there are additional steps to ensure accountability so the folks that the president appoints [16:27] and puts in power when he is elected by the American people are able to review grant issuance decisions. [16:33] The example I used yesterday was Dr. Oz, apparently, through information systems, again, [16:39] we're trying to set up an AI system in OMB to scan the data to look for potential fraud, [16:46] but he identified that a third of all hospice centers in America are located in Los Angeles. [16:52] That is just an astonishing fact, which, of course, as an auditor, you start drilling into that, [16:57] going, how can this be possible? Apparently, through those investigations, [17:01] they determined that they were not going to fund 400 of these hospice centers. [17:05] They cut off funding, and I'd kind of like you to describe that process. [17:10] But having cut off funding, not one of the 400 centers complained, which speaks volumes, right? [17:18] I mean, if you were a legitimate hospice center, you'd be relying on that funding, [17:21] and you'd be screaming, you know, bloody murder, say, we need that funds, not one of 400. [17:26] So it just gives you a sense of just the pervasiveness or fraud within so many of these programs. [17:34] But just talk about the process of what we have to do to prevent money going out. [17:38] Thank you, Senator. In order to prevent money from going out, [17:43] you need to make sure you have the data to understand who these funds should be going to. [17:49] In a lot of cases, we aren't provided with that data, and we have limited decision-making space. [17:53] We also need to ensure that, like I said, files like the Do Net Pay system are being checked, [18:00] that we have endpoint verification. In many instances, when something goes to the states [18:05] and is block granted to the states, that's kind of the end of the line for federal government oversight. [18:10] At that point, the states are the ones that are distributing the money. [18:12] And to your point, it's become incredibly difficult to get it on the back end. [18:16] The Fraud Task Force and the work that it's doing has been kind of twofold in the sense that they're trying to stand up [18:22] and ensure that agencies are using tools that are on the books, and when we need additional tools, [18:27] let's ask Congress for those, to stop money from going out to fraudulent payments on the front end, [18:32] but also trying to attack the fraud on the back end. [18:35] So just real quickly, can you also talk about the resistance you're getting, [18:39] this administration is getting from governors of states that refuse to provide the information that you need to prevent the fraud? [18:46] Absolutely, Senator. And we've seen this in the SNAP program, particularly states. [18:51] Some states have been more than willing to provide their SNAP data to the administration so we can verify compliance with the program's terms. [18:59] Others have not. Others have filed lawsuits against us. [19:02] That is a microcosm of a problem that exists across the board, [19:06] and that's certainly a place where we need additional tools from Congress to be able to ensure compliance [19:12] and ensure the federal taxpayer dollars are being spent wisely and in a manner that's fiscally responsible. [19:18] I appreciate your efforts. Thanks. [19:19] I think this brings up a point that is probably, we talk about oversight, maybe one of the most important points we'll get to. [19:25] We have lots and lots of programs where the states sign people up for it and the federal government pays for it. [19:31] There's no oversight because then the states resist the oversight. [19:34] But we're letting the states sign people up, so everybody and their brother might be signed up for food stamps, [19:40] able-bodied people, people working, people not eligible, but we can't review it because California will resist or New York will resist. [19:46] This is probably the biggest oversight problem we face in all of the payment programs we have in our country. [19:52] Senator Peters? [19:53] Mr. Hamilton, under President Trump's second administration, nearly 90 percent of Republican states' disaster assistance requests have been approved. [20:08] That compares to only 23 percent of Democratic states' requests. [20:15] Since the establishment of FEMA, no, and let me highlight no other president has created such a disparity in states that receive federal disaster aid. [20:28] Denying over 75 percent of requests from states that are led by representatives of another party is unconscionable. [20:35] We have a chart here. [20:36] I'll just show you the chart here, which is pretty stark data. [20:39] Pretty stark data from Trump. [20:43] Stand up, please. [20:44] Hi. [20:46] Republican states. [20:47] Boom. [20:48] A collapse in Democratic states. [20:50] Given this stark data, what other conclusions can one draw other than the president is using federal disaster assistance to punish states that elect Democrats? [21:00] So my question for you, sir, is does disaster survivor in a blue state deserve less support than a survivor in a red state? [21:07] Senator, thank you for your question. [21:10] What I can tell you is I care deeply for survivors, and I believe the president does as well. [21:14] I believe all survivors who have faced high consequence events deserve the proper care, support, and resources of the United States government brought to bear. [21:22] So how do you explain this discrepancy here? [21:25] Well, Senator, I certainly appreciate your concern. [21:28] What I can tell you is that if confirmed, my focus will be to ensure that FEMA is objective, is fair and reasonable, follows the law, and is consistent in the approach to be how we adjudicate and process claims and requests for disasters. [21:41] Well, I'm going to cut back to that. [21:42] But, you know, I would just want to say, and I seem to recall my colleagues on the other side of the aisle here, were absolutely incensed by several instances during President Biden's tenure where FEMA representatives skipped houses with Trump signs. [21:55] I called that out as well. I thought that was unaccountable. I'm on the record condemning that. [22:00] My Republican colleagues were condemning that. And now that the federal government is deciding not to skip a few homes, but entire states, I would hope my colleagues would join me with that outrage that they had when a few houses were skipped. [22:13] I hope that comes. I hope we hear that today. But it's concerning to your point about doing something different, which I hope that's the case. But you were involved in this process for five months last year and are now back at DHS now. [22:27] But you still can't answer questions about what happened while you were there. Why this huge cliff of Democratic states being denied disaster assistance, survivors being denied disaster assistance. [22:38] So I'm not satisfied with that answer. I don't trust that that's what you're going to do because it didn't seem like you did it when you were there before or were not involved in it or don't now talk about it. [22:48] I certainly hope that we get further explanations of how you're going to go forward and certainly Mr. Duncan as well. I'll be asking for information regarding this written Mr. Duncan, as we discussed yesterday. [23:01] OMB is refusing to cooperate with at least 14 GAO audits, including 10 audits required by law required by law. You're ignoring them and for audits that I requested as the main ranking member of his gag. [23:17] As I hope you know, geo is is Congress's independent nonpartisan watchdog. Now, I know that drives this administration crazy to have a watchdog, especially if they're independent. [23:27] They're used to people standing around them just rubber snapping whatever they do. But these are independent watchdogs and their work has literally saved billions in taxpayer money from fraud for abuse. [23:39] And you're ignoring those. OMB is ignoring them. Will you commit without reservation to full cooperation with every GAO audit? [23:48] Senator, I appreciate the question and I appreciated the opportunity to meet with you and your team yesterday. [23:55] We have received that list of audits that your team flagged for us last night. I sent it to our team this morning first thing and asked them to review. [24:05] We're going to have a conversation about those specific audits right after this hearing. As it relates to inquiries we get from GAO, I would note that GAO has seven times the number of employees that OMB does. [24:18] At one point, we had 50 open inquiries from GAO mid last year. We try to respond to GAO inquiries in a responsible time while we're able to while still maintaining our ability to carry out our duties in support of the administration. [24:32] I certainly commit to being apprised of every GAO request and discussing next steps with counsel and understand the importance of the responses to the audits that you flagged for me yesterday and the responses there as well. [24:45] Well, I hope you will be. I appreciate that you will do that. I look forward to your quick response. I appreciate you mentioning the resources GAO has. They have it for a reason because they actually save billions of dollars. [24:56] And as I recall, Congress has given OMB 100 million dollars in the big, beautiful bill. So there are plenty of resources in your department. And if you could dedicate some of those to independent oversight and actually save billions of dollars in taxpayer money, I would certainly welcome that. We hope to see that if you're confirmed. [25:14] Senator Moreno. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So there was some concerns about the five of you not having your background checks and FBI pieces. So maybe we can do a little vetting here this morning if you guys don't mind. So maybe we can assuage some concerns that people may have legitimately about your backgrounds. [25:32] So starting with you, Mr. Duncan, if you guys just say yes or no quickly, do any of you have a Nazi tattoo? Senator, as I mentioned yesterday, I do not have any tattoos, especially not a Nazi tattoo. [25:43] Mr. Kavanaugh. Senator, I do not have any tattoos of that nature. Cummings. Do not have any tattoos, Senator. No. No. Have any of you ever said that women deserve to be raped and should take accountability for being intoxicated? Senator, absolutely not. No. No. Senator, I've had family members sexually assaulted and very egregious [26:07] ways, so absolutely not. How about that black people don't tip well? Would that be in your background? No, Senator. No, sir. Absolutely not. No. Have any of you fantasized about raping men who broke into your homes? Senator, absolutely not. No, Senator. No, sir. No. No. Have any of you fantasized about masturbating in public bathrooms? Senator, absolutely not. No, Senator. No, sir. No, sir. No. Well, I'm glad that you clarified that for us. I mean, you wouldn't have [26:50] be qualified to be the Democrat nominee for Senate Maine, but certainly glad that we got those questions out of the way. And, Mr. Hamilton, I ask you one last one, that the Democrat nominee for Senate Maine has been endorsed by Senate Democrats. What do you think about the idea that he called people who got killed in Afghanistan losers as somebody who served? Does that make you feel as somebody who's in the military? [27:14] Well, thank you for the question, Senator. As a combat veteran, former Navy SEAL, I've served with some amazing men and women overseas, some of the most incredible Americans. I take that with grave personal offense. I've lost friends who've been buried in that soil. I've had great Americans that I've worked with that I've had to save their lives for. I think it's a reprehensible statement that strikes at the very heart and nature of American character. [27:38] And if any of the people here that we're looking to confirm for these positions had any of these things in our background, would you fault us for not voting for those people and disqualifying them right away, Mr. Hamilton, from just your position? [27:52] I would not support an individual with statements such as that if I can speak on a personal matter, Senator. [27:58] Perfect. I appreciate it. Mr. Cummings, you're looking to take over the TSA. We're sitting here in June. [28:04] TSA has been shut down by the Democrats three times just this Congress alone. [28:10] There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the Democrats are plotting again not to cooperate with appropriations and shut down the government again in September. [28:19] Tell me how difficult it is to you to be in that job knowing that your workers may once again not receive a paycheck, not because they didn't do the good job, not because they didn't show up for work, [28:34] because of pure, raw, unadulterated politics. How difficult does that make your job? [28:40] Thank you for the question, Mr. Senator. It is clear that going without pay for months is not something that any American should have to put up with, [28:53] least of which the ones that are protecting our skies and our transportation systems. [28:59] And so I think I would hope that this Congress keeps that in mind and for future appropriations and spending bills that if we should care about the essential workers, [29:14] we should care about those that are protecting our borders, those that are protecting our airports, our transportation systems. [29:21] And quite frankly, their morale that I've encountered is quite low right now. [29:26] And it's something that I'm going to have to put as my number one priority in my first day on the job. [29:32] We should do our job and fund the government. Yes, we should. [29:35] And Mr. Hamilton, do you think it's important? How important do you think it is for us to pass Senator Johnson's Shutdown Fairness Act? [29:41] That would say in the inevitability that the Democrats decide that it's politically wise for them to shut down the government, [29:47] that government employees would continue to get paid so that they don't get used as pawns. [29:52] I would say, Senator, that it's reasonable for us to pass legislation to ensure that all the federal executive actions can be achieved properly and are properly funded. [30:01] And real quickly, Mr. Kavanaugh, there's about $65 billion owed to the U.S. government by Chinese solar panel companies that lost the lawsuit. [30:12] They owe that money to the Customs and Border Patrol Department for tariffs that they did not pay. [30:18] Do I have your commitment that you'll go after them, chase them down, and hunt them down for every last cent? [30:24] Senator, you absolutely have my commitment to do that. [30:26] And as if confirmed, I look forward to taking advantage of several developments in technology to close loopholes that countries have been using. [30:34] Thank you. [30:36] Senator Hassan. [30:37] Thank you, Mr. Chair and Senator Marino. [30:40] I'd look forward to your review of Senator Lankford's and my end-government shutdown bill. [30:44] It has strong bipartisan support. [30:46] I want to thank the witnesses for being here today. [30:52] I normally ask all nominees this question, and I'm going to ask it for the record so we don't spend time with your answers this morning. [31:01] But the question will be if the president orders you to violate the law, whether you're going to follow the law or follow the president's directive. [31:09] And now I'll move on to my first question, which is to Mr. Hamilton. [31:12] I'm going to follow up on the line that Senator Peters was asking you, because I, too, am concerned that the report came out earlier this year that FEMA, under the Trump administration, had approved 89 percent of disaster funding applications submitted by Republican-led states, but only 23 percent from Democratic-led states. [31:35] As you and I discussed in our meeting, as you and I discussed in our meeting, and I appreciated that meeting, this is unacceptable. [31:40] The idea that Americans who need help in the wake of a tornado or a flood or a hurricane should be treated differently based upon politics is shameful. [31:50] It is un-American. [31:51] So, Mr. Hamilton, do you agree that politics and partisan considerations should play no part in approving disaster assistance? [31:59] I do, ma'am. [32:02] Thank you. [32:03] If you recommend that disaster assistance should be approved and the president disagrees based upon his political or personal considerations, what would you do? [32:16] Well, thank you for the question, ma'am. [32:17] I think that every disaster has to be adjudicated and evaluated on their own merits. [32:21] So, we would take the consideration of the public assistance, individual assistance team, formulate what we believe to be an appropriate course of action and strong recommendations to the president. [32:30] My goal will be to make that process, if confirmed, as clear and objective as possible. [32:35] Right. But what would you do if he says, look, it's led by a Democratic governor, so I'm just not going to – your recommendation, I get it, but I want to punish the Democrats so they're not getting it. [32:47] What would you do? [32:48] Well, that's a very odd hypothetical. [32:51] I don't believe the president would do that, but I will tell you that my oath of office requires that I follow and obey the law. [32:56] Well, I do believe, given the evidence that we're seeing right now, that the president would do it, because that's the only explanation for that kind of gap between the awards of disaster assistance. [33:07] We have a president who does some outrageous things. [33:11] To Senator Marino's earlier questions, including making incredibly derogatory comments about veterans and Senator John McCain. [33:19] So we have a president who daily gives us examples of breaking the law, and you all are going to have to think about what you will do when he reverses your decision completely based on politics, which, as I said, would be immoral and un-American. [33:37] I appreciate your commitment to following your oath of office, but I hope you will give this serious thought. [33:41] Now, to Mr. Kavanaugh, Secretary Noem put Corey Lewandowski in charge of the day-to-day operations of the Department of Homeland Security. [33:50] Mr. Lewandowski then reportedly abused his position to personally profit from blatant corruption. [33:57] During the presidential transition, Mr. Lewandowski reportedly demanded bribes in exchange for DHS contracts. [34:03] At DHS, he handed out no-bid contracts to his cronies and fired employees who stood in his way. [34:10] So, Mr. Kavanaugh, as Undersecretary for Management, you'd be the top contracting official at DHS. [34:16] Will you commit to conducting a review of DHS contracts that might have been approved by Mr. Lewandowski for potential self-dealing and corrupt pay-to-play schemes? [34:28] Senator, thank you for the question. [34:30] I'd like to start by saying Secretary Mullen, after being confirmed, has already began that process. [34:36] And if confirmed, I'd commit to following up and providing additional support into the process of reviewing all contracts. [34:41] Okay. [34:42] Including the contracts that might have been approved by Mr. Lewandowski for potential self-dealing and corrupt pay-to-play schemes? [34:50] Correct. [34:50] Okay. [34:52] And, Secretary Mullen, will you personally also oversee that process? [35:03] As the Undersecretary for Management, yes. [35:05] The delegation would be down to that role. [35:07] Okay. [35:08] And will you commit to giving Congress the information it needs to conduct its own investigation into Mr. Lewandowski's corruption, [35:16] such as rooting sheets and other documents that show Mr. Lewandowski's role in DHS contracts? [35:22] Senator, I commit to being open and transparent and accountable with the oversight committees and look forward to that relationship. [35:28] All right. [35:28] Thank you very much. [35:29] Mr. Duncan, in January—oh, I'm seeing that I'm almost out of time, Mr. Chair, so I will ask this question for the record. [35:38] Thank you. [35:41] Senator Scott. [35:43] Thank you, Chairman. [35:44] Thank you, Jim. [35:46] Congratulations. [35:47] Thank you for being here. [35:48] Congratulations on your nominations. [35:50] So, Mr. Hamilton, FEMA's a pretty big deal for Florida, right? [35:53] We've—when I was governor, we had four major hurricanes, and FEMA was an unbelievable partner in our state. [36:01] The—tell me how you would handle this. [36:04] So, right or wrong, I never understood it. [36:07] It never made any sense to me. [36:09] But the federal government would pay 75 percent of things like shelter and—and debris pickup and things like that. [36:16] So, the—and then—so, on debris pickup, here's what happened. [36:22] So, a county would have a contract for $7, $8, $8.50 a square foot, our cubic yard. [36:30] And then—so, we—then the federal government, just out of the graciousness, they would pay 75 percent of it. [36:37] The state would pay 12 and a half percent. [36:39] And the county would pay 12 and a half percent. [36:41] So, I got all these calls as soon as a major storm happened and said, you know, I need to turn that—you need to turn that over to the Corps of Engineers. [36:47] Because if you turned it over to the Corps of Engineers, they do—they supposedly do it way better, right? [36:52] So, I always assumed when I got this call, there's money involved, right? [36:56] Well, here's what happens. [36:57] As soon as I turned it over to the Corps, it's 90 percent by the Feds for whatever reason. [37:02] Then I paid five at the state. [37:03] The county's paid five. [37:04] Good deal, right, for the state. [37:06] Not a great deal for the federal government. [37:08] What's better is—guess what the contract was with the Corps. [37:11] What's your guess? [37:14] I couldn't guess, Senator. [37:15] 72 bucks. [37:17] Same with them. [37:18] $72 a cubic yard. [37:20] So, and then—and so—and guess what? [37:24] It's the same companies. [37:27] And if these companies would decide they didn't want to—if I wouldn't turn it over to the Corps and they wouldn't—they would say, oh, I'm not going to pick it up. [37:33] Then they'd say, oh, I want 20 bucks. [37:36] Then the government—like that, they'd say, okay, we'll pay 75 percent of that. [37:40] Does that make any sense to you? [37:41] No, I think, Senator, you've identified some unique challenges that would have to be resolved within FEMA. [37:47] There are—the Corps of Engineers is a—they are to utilize contract vehicles through the Department of War. [37:53] Through the Economy Act, they allow and leverage other federal government agencies to take advantage of their contracting capability. [38:00] It's fairly ubiquitous throughout the United States government. [38:02] What I will say is there's definitely concerns about trying to find ways to reduce the administrative cost of some of these projects. [38:09] And I think that we—my role, if confirmed, will be to ensure that states have enough information possible to understand the programs better and to encourage cost reasonableness. [38:18] Fair, reasonable, and justifiable have to be the measurements through which we approach all contract activity. [38:24] So, if confirmed, my focus will be to ensure that our procurement processes and everything that FEMA does to facilitate payments and reimbursements are fair, [38:35] are within market rates, and are reasonable, so that the American people feel that not only they're getting the best bang for their buck, [38:41] but that we're also being wise and diligent with taxpayer dollars as good stewards. [38:45] So, why does the federal government pay 75 percent of a lot of this? [38:50] Why? What's the argument? [38:52] So, much of that is written within the Stafford Act and other legislative actions that have occurred that stipulate the balance between federal and state investment. [38:59] States then commute some of that investment down to the local level. [39:02] This is the unique paradigm that is always in fluctuation within various disasters. [39:08] The hurricanes that we saw with Helena Milton, there was 100 percent cost share. [39:12] The federal government pays for the entirety of the disaster. [39:15] That is a discretion that the president may have at times, or a 90 percent cost share in the event that the devastation is more particularly egregious and cataclysmic, [39:25] that clearly transcends a state's ability to respond. [39:28] Now, these are balances that have to be struck, and this is ultimately a decision space, as in law, for the commander-in-chief. [39:35] My job is, if confirmed, will be to represent to him all the objective facts and to ensure that as we liquidate and expense dollars in accordance with his decision, [39:45] that we do so with reasonableness and that we're wise with those dollars to go further. [39:49] My focus is to help as many disaster survivors as possible, which means we have to be responsible with how we use those funds. [39:57] So if the state and the county have less and less skin in the game, do you think they're going to watch the money? [40:05] I'll be transparent with you, Senator. [40:06] I think many states and local officials have had incentives to drive up costs. [40:11] I think this is also a unique challenge within disaster management and response. [40:15] Now, yes, they're entitled to support. [40:18] We, as the agency, have confirmed, we would need to strike a new balance to encourage cost reasonableness and cost savings. [40:25] So, yes, there are direct incentives for states to escalate costs because they bring home more resources and infrastructure. [40:31] We have quite a bit of deferred maintenance. [40:32] This is always an issue with FEMA grants, where states will then request that reimbursements be made to cover other disaster-related, you know, [40:40] devastation that wasn't directly connected to the one which was requested. [40:44] It's never an easy battle. [40:46] My goal is to be transparent and to partner with states so that we can ensure that those dollars go further [40:52] and that we can ensure that states are also being responsible with us. [40:57] I think the president very clearly cares to ensure that states have their own skin in the game as well [41:01] so that they're paying their apportionment. [41:03] The Stafford Act, in the second paragraph, stipulates state responsibilities to respond to disasters, [41:09] federal responsibility then to come in and support those efforts. [41:14] Thank you. [41:14] Senator Scott, I think you've hit the nail on the head on oversight. [41:17] I think to have true oversight, if you had a 50-50 split and we stuck by it, I'm guessing there'd be less disasters declared. [41:26] And why do we give, why, you know, what Senator Hassan brought up, this idea that, you know, [41:31] a president could pick and choose, you know, whether it was a Republican or a Democrat president. [41:35] So, and then somebody can waive and get 100 percent? [41:38] This is crazy. [41:39] I mean, we're running $2 trillion deficits. [41:41] No, this, I don't get why we have no incentive for, there's so little incentive for the local government to watch the money. [41:48] Senator Hassan, you want to say anything since you referred to it? [41:51] I, as a former, as a, as a former governor who has worked closely with my local communities, especially one right now, [41:59] which has been devastated for the third time in two or three years by heavy rains. [42:03] I think they watch their dollars very closely, at least in my state. [42:08] Thank you. [42:09] Do you do debris, he must not do debris pickup like I have to. [42:12] The same. [42:13] I, I, I'm happy to work with you on reforming disaster relief, but I don't think this is the time or the place. [42:17] But the, the same principle of the 50-50 split goes to things like Medicaid. [42:22] Do you think we would be taking care of the poorest and the neediest if the split were 50-50 or if the federal government pays 90 percent? [42:30] So all these things make a big difference. [42:32] We let the states make these decisions, but then the federal government pays, picks up the check. [42:36] So you can't have the people determining the cost separated from the people paying, or you get a disastrous $2 trillion deficit. [42:43] Mr. Mr. Chair, just, there are parameters and rules that states have to follow if they're going to get that 90 percent reimbursement, [42:51] and their oversight could be improved if we improve our government processes, to be sure. [42:56] But I think the assumption that our deficit right now is the result of that as opposed to the result of tax cuts to billionaires is pretty rich. [43:04] Thank you. [43:05] Yeah, I think it's a great discussion and a debate, because the thing is, is when you don't pay for it, there's not a, a financial disincentive to add more people. [43:15] So what happens, since the federal government pays 90 percent of Medicaid now, healthier, richer people are on Medicaid than used to be. [43:22] The people that were added were, had higher incomes and were healthier and more able-bodied than we had previously, [43:29] because the states do have to be more judicious when they're paying a higher percentage of what Medicaid costs. [43:34] And I'll just note, it's something around $16,000 is the limit for a single adult in my state to get Medicaid expansion. [43:40] That's not a high earner. Thank you. [43:43] Senator Schlotkin. [43:46] Thank you for being here. [43:48] Thank you to a couple of you who I met in my office yesterday and for taking the time. [43:55] Obviously, you've heard a lot, Mr. Hamilton, about concerns about politicization. [43:59] And, you know, I think the, the thing that you heard from my colleague from Michigan was it's just hard to, to rationalize just the, how many disasters have been approved for aid in Republican states versus Democratic states. [44:18] And in Michigan, we're a swing state, we're a purple state, and I, I think particularly the ice storm that we had a year and a half ago has really felt like we've had to use an, an incredible amount of, of influence and power, [44:35] both Democrats and Republicans working together in our delegation to get, um, reimbursement. [44:42] And, um, I think, you know, the total damage from that storm was $440 million. [44:48] And if we don't, you know, get help, then the average rate payer, you know, because we had electric co-ops go down, is going to be charged an extra $4,500 per household. [44:58] So it is pretty existential for people in my state. [45:02] Um, I know you're, you're someone who's worked in and around FEMA for a long time. [45:06] Um, but I just want to double tap the idea that we, we can't have stats coming out of your office when and if you get confirmed that demonstrate that you get more of a payout if you're in a Republican state and a faster payout if you're in a Republican state. [45:22] And I, I, that should go without saying, um, and Republicans would be screaming bloody murder if the stats were reversed and if it was easier to get money if you were a Democratic state under a Democratic president. [45:34] Let's please keep disasters apolitical. [45:37] Um, I, I want to ask, uh, to Mr. Duncan, you've had an interesting couple of days up here on the Hill, made some news, gone viral a couple of times. [45:46] Um, and, uh, I just feel like, um, this idea that to get a federal grant, um, you, the rules have been rewritten so that you can reject any organization that represents, quote, anti-American values, um, and anyone who, quote, damages the reputation of the government. [46:07] So you're going to be in an important position of power. [46:09] You want the big job, you answer the big questions. [46:11] Um, if a university that was receiving federal dollars, uh, for a research grant into cancer, but they allowed a protest, a peaceful protest of the Iran war, um, on their campus, would that be, quote, damaging to the reputation of the government? [46:28] Senator, I appreciate the question. [46:30] Um, and, uh, as you know, with 2CFR, it's signed off by all 41 agencies. [46:35] Right, but in your mind, you're a decision, you're asking to be a decision maker, right? [46:39] So I understand there's a chain, I was a federal government employee for a long time, but you're, you're asking, you're up here for Senate confirmation, so it's a big job. [46:47] Is a protest, a First Amendment, peaceful protest on a college campus, threaten the federal dollars that they are getting for cancer research under the rules that you will be enforcing, yes or no? [47:00] Senator, you're asking a hypothetical question, but I would note that this rule isn't... [47:05] Yes, we do, I mean, I have University of Michigan and Michigan State, there are protests from time to time, and that's for sure, so it's not hypothetical, this is something that, literally in 15, 20 days, you could be dealing with, is a First Amendment protest on a college campus enough to be, quote, anti-American, or threatening the reputation of this administration? [47:22] In the hypothetical question that you're asking, related to grants for cancer research, this administration is committed to gold standard science, and wants to advance the best cancer research that we possibly can. [47:35] Okay, so they can have a protest on their campus, and I would just say, slashing cancer research, and slashing our science institutions around the country, and making us have to be literally one-tenth of the medical research that's going on in, like, places like China and Europe, is not a way to uphold a gold standard for cancer research, and I say that for a woman who's, you know, got cancer in her family. [48:00] If a domestic violence shelter receives a federal grant, but they also post complaints about this administration's cutting of domestic violence funding, will that put them at risk of being labeled anti-American, or threatening the reputation of this administration? [48:18] Senator, again, you're asking hypothetical questions. The ultimate deciders of these grants will be the political employees at the agencies, I would imagine in this situation it would likely be HHS. [48:28] The political employees? The political appointees? The political appointees, OMB does not issue grants, we issue guidance, uniform guidance on grants, so I would not make decisions on a specific grant. [48:41] But if someone calls you, I mean, again, this is like, you can't want the big job, but then not answer the big questions. [48:48] I think the idea that First Amendment activities would be, quote, anti-American or threatening the reputation of this administration, you understand that you're creating a climate of fear around things that are actually, it's the opposite of anti-American. [49:03] It's the most American thing in the world, the First Amendment. [49:05] So I think you've raised a lot of concerns in your testimony over the last couple of days, but the idea that the administration would put that kind of language out there to intimidate and scare people out of freedom of speech is something that is the most anti-American thing I've seen in a long time. [49:23] Yield back. [49:23] Senator Ernst. [49:25] Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to all of you for being here today and being willing to step forward and serve. [49:31] And I'll focus most of my questions this morning on you, Mr. Duncan, if I could, please. [49:38] You have worked with the OMB. [49:40] I do a lot of work with the GAO and the OMB on my fraud, waste, and abuse within the federal government work. [49:49] And we do require a healthy dialogue back and forth between the legislative and executive branches so that we can effectively serve our constituencies back home. [50:04] And the legislative branch conducts oversight. [50:07] And this is one of the most foundational parts of the back and forth between the executive and the legislative branches. [50:13] And the Government Accountability Office conducts different in-depth investigations. [50:19] And a lot of that work is done on behalf of a number of us that will request certain reports, investigations, and they will then make recommendations back to us based on those reports. [50:32] So I'm currently working with the GAO on a number of projects, and they have reported that OMB has been very slow to respond to some of their investigations. [50:45] And so, Mr. Duncan, if you are confirmed to this position, will you work to ensure that OMB responds to investigations and oversight efforts from Congress? [50:53] Senator, yes, absolutely. [50:54] Senator, yes, absolutely. [50:56] And we'll work with our legal counsel on that matter and offer the same commitment that I offered to the ranking member on that front as well. [51:03] Yes, and I thank you so much for that. [51:05] And for the rest of the members on the panel as well, because there has been such an issue with fraud within the federal government, [51:12] we hope that all of you within your respective positions are constantly evaluating your departments, your agencies to make sure that every taxpayer dollar is actually going to the very programs or reasons that it was intended. [51:30] We have uncovered so much fraud within the federal government. [51:33] What we've discovered is that every single day, our federal government loses $1.4 billion to fraud every single day. [51:47] And even federal government workers, I'm going to highlight two here because it'll kind of lead into my next question. [51:54] But we've uncovered several of these. [51:57] It's kind of shocking. [51:58] I just want to share them because we have tens and tens of people watching C-SPAN today. [52:05] There are many federal workers that will claim to be working for multiple agencies at the same time. [52:11] And this was enabled by telework that went on during the Biden administration and that President Trump finally put an end to. [52:19] But we had one woman that claimed she was working for TSA, for HUD, for FDA. [52:24] Oh, and God bless her for her service, the Air Force Reserves. [52:29] And she was working all of those jobs at the same time. [52:32] And she was turning in a time card for 120-hour work weeks. [52:36] Okay, that's just one example. [52:39] There was another one that was working for AmeriCorps, HUD, and NIH. [52:45] Again, three full-time jobs all at the same time, turning in time cards to the federal government. [52:50] So please be aware that fraud exists out there and use the tools at your disposal to out these fraudsters. [53:00] We have a lot of lazy bureaucrats that are out there trying to scam the federal government for all they can. [53:05] We've got a lot of great workers, too. [53:07] But we need to ferret out the fraud, waste, and abuse. [53:10] So, again, Mr. Duncan, last year when Congressional Democrats shut down the government in October, [53:17] I sent a letter to OMB Director of Vote detailing a number of prime spending cuts that I thought he should pursue. [53:25] And, Mr. Duncan, one of those suggestions was to stop giving government bureaucrats bonuses [53:30] when we are massively in debt and they don't do their jobs. [53:36] Amazingly, many of them still get bonuses. [53:38] So can you speak to any actions that OMB has taken this Congress to reduce the amount of bonuses [53:45] the federal government is paying to these lazy bureaucrats? [53:49] Senator, I appreciate the question. [53:51] As it relates to the specifics on bonuses, I would have to circle up with our management team on that. [53:56] But the president's management agenda is very clear in the sense that we want to ensure that the federal workforce [54:04] is working efficiently and that we're optimizing the use of taxpayer dollars in the workforce. [54:09] So I'm happy to continue to work with you on that matter as well. [54:12] Yes, and I appreciate it. [54:13] And I do want to say, too, that in your current previous roles at OMB, [54:20] you have been very helpful to me and my team as we are trying to ferret out that fraud, waste, and abuse. [54:26] So we really do appreciate that. [54:28] Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. [54:31] Senator, the mention of people working two and three jobs in the government [54:34] reminds me of an assistant director under the EPA under Obama [54:38] who was pretty high in the organization, but he also said he worked for the CIA. [54:44] And he didn't get paid by the CIA, but he would take six months off at a time. [54:47] They said, where is this guy? [54:49] Oh, he's on assignment with the CIA. [54:51] They finally had a shutdown that caught him, and they, I think he went to jail [54:55] and had like $8 million in back payments. [54:57] But in a government with this many millions of people, you're absolutely right. [55:01] We need to look at it. [55:02] Senator Blumenthal. [55:03] Thank you. [55:05] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [55:11] Thank you all for being here today and your willingness to serve. [55:15] Mr. Hamilton, when you were in the position of, I think it was acting director, [55:29] you wrote a memo advocating that the per capita indicator that is necessary to qualify [55:38] for receiving disaster relief be raised to $7.56 per person. [55:45] That's almost quadrupling the threshold cap, which would in effect disqualify a lot of communities, [55:56] including some in Connecticut, perhaps, as might have happened just last August, 2024, [56:07] when we experienced a catastrophic rainfall and flooding in parts of the state, [56:12] a one-in-1,000-year extreme rainfall event. [56:16] Thankfully, after a disaster declaration was issued, [56:20] Connecticut was able to get the assistance that we needed to rebuild. [56:24] But the kind of policy that you advocated in your memo might well have disqualified Connecticut, [56:35] raising that threshold from $1.94 to $7.56. [56:41] Do you still support raising the per capita indicator per person outlined in your April 12, 2025 memo? [56:51] Well, thank you for the question, Senator. [56:53] I would say that I diligently care for all Americans facing disasters [56:57] and want to ensure that resources are provided promptly. [57:00] That was a memo written last year, which was part of a deliberative pre-decisional process. [57:05] It was not intended for any immediate action. [57:08] It was part of a series of conversations that we had had with different elements of the federal executive [57:13] to look at areas where disaster assistance might be reformed. [57:17] So that is not your position currently? [57:19] That is not my position, and that is not a position that was ready for implementation or adoption, sir. [57:25] Let me ask you about the current staffing of FEMA. [57:36] Can you tell me how many people are currently working in FEMA Region 1? [57:42] FEMA Region 1, well, yes, that's obviously up in the northeast in your area. [57:46] It's our region. [57:47] That's correct. [57:47] They have several hundred employees. [57:49] They also have various personnel that are deployed to FIT teams, FEMA integration teams. [57:54] I don't think I have the exact number of employees stationed within the FEMA FIT teams, [57:59] but I'd be happy to provide you, Senator, with the more. [58:00] Well, do you know the precise number? [58:01] I've tried repeatedly to get this question answered from Secretary Noem. [58:06] In fact, on July 14, 2025, I sent a letter to her asking a series of questions about staffing levels [58:13] levels for FEMA's Region 1 that serves Connecticut. [58:17] I received no response to my letter until February 20, 2026, and that response did not include the requested information. [58:28] Can you give it to me now? [58:29] I don't have that right at this moment, Senator, but I would commit to following back up with you to ensure that you have that information. [58:34] Are you aware that that number represents cuts of anywhere from 20 to 30 percent of staff over the last year? [58:44] Senator, I am aware that there have been many cuts and reductions in staff. [58:47] Yes, sir. [58:47] Don't those cuts jeopardize the responsiveness of FEMA to the kinds of disasters that we suffered in August of 2024 [58:57] and other parts of the country have suffered? [59:00] I think certainly FEMA operates in a unique environment where there are challenges and setbacks that impact our ability to respond. [59:08] What I can tell you is I have full faith and confidence in the FEMA workforce. [59:12] I believe they are an exceptional group of public servants. [59:15] They are an exceptional group of public servants, but there need to be enough of them to be on the ground as they are in a very dedicated and conscientious way. [59:26] I have walked with them literally from house to house, business to business. [59:31] I'm very confident in their ability and dedication, but there are simply not enough of them, [59:37] and you will lose more of them unless you are adequately staffed. [59:41] Do you agree? [59:43] I would agree that the FEMA workforce needs to be scalable in such a way to best meet the needs of the agency [59:49] and the execution of the program and mission. [59:50] Doesn't it need to be increased, in other words, to restore the staff levels essential to their morale as well as their responsiveness? [1:00:04] Well, I do want to praise Secretary Mullen with his approval and under his leadership. [1:00:09] There's been roughly just shy of 350 positions that were made available again to fill critical vacancies in key program offices and key responsibilities. [1:00:18] I believe Secretary Mullen is a man of principle and cares very deeply about ensuring that the workforce is sufficiently staffed commensurate to the responsibilities. [1:00:27] My time has expired, but I would like staffing levels for Region 1 and for other regions in the country, [1:00:35] as well as what those numbers represent in terms of cuts over the last year and what plans you have to restore those numbers. [1:00:45] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:00:46] Senator Moody. [1:00:46] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all our nominees for being here today and your families that are sitting behind you, standing behind you. [1:00:55] You have answered the President's call to serve this country in your respective critical roles. [1:01:01] We very much appreciate it. [1:01:02] I am somewhat surprised to hear my Democratic colleagues now charging in on making sure that FEMA is politically neutral. [1:01:12] Of course it should be politically neutral. [1:01:13] We should all expect that. [1:01:14] As many of you know, I'm the most junior senator on this committee and for Florida, the state of Florida, which experiences disasters from storms routinely, back-to-back storms. [1:01:28] In the aftermath of some very devastating storms, I was forced as Attorney General in Florida to bring a lawsuit against President Biden's FEMA administrator and a FEMA supervisor after it was uncovered that the supervisor had instructed disaster relief workers in Florida to, and I quote, avoid homes advertising Trump. [1:01:49] And to be clear, and to be clear, these instructions weren't merely sent and forgotten, they were carried out. [1:01:57] FEMA personnel canvassed Lake Placid, Florida, and in the aftermath of Hurricane Milton, they intentionally skipped homes with Trump signs and flags. [1:02:05] Members of the members of the community were reeling after that storm, trying to figure out how they were going to provide for their family, safeguard their property, and yet FEMA employees were instructed to avoid homes that advertised support for the President. [1:02:23] This FEMA supervisor who sent that message later claimed that the practice was not isolated to Lake Placid or even to Florida, and that the political discrimination within FEMA was far more widespread. [1:02:35] And so I am happy to hear that my Democratic colleagues now are saying that politics have no place in disaster response, but I'm disheartened to hear numbers throwing around without examining where those numbers come from. [1:02:49] In fact, when I got here to be the United States Senator, having been the Attorney General and uncovering that, litigating against that, pushing back on political discrimination within FEMA, [1:02:59] I realized, after hearing from so many of my constituents around the state, that there were many claims outstanding that had not been paid from storms going back into the Biden administration that were just sitting there. [1:03:15] Thankfully, I worked with Noam and now Secretary Mullen, and we've seen engagement in trying to push forward these things so that folks in Florida, communities in Florida, can recover from these storms. [1:03:29] But when I tell you, it has been over a billion dollars I have had to push to get released on storms that went back into the last administration. [1:03:41] So I am grateful that we are seeing such progress. [1:03:45] I am grateful that that money is now flowing into Florida. [1:03:47] I don't like the fact that I had to become a senator in order to get it done, but proud of my new role and glad to serve the great state of Florida and the people of Florida. [1:03:56] But I want to talk to you, Mr. Hamilton, about ensuring that politics does stay out of disaster response. [1:04:03] We can all agree that is the case. [1:04:05] In fact, I'm proud to say I worked with a colleague across the aisle, Senator Alcabrooks, to just pass and get signed into law a TRAC Act, [1:04:12] which would provide accountability for these claims and more efficiency so that people can actually track these. [1:04:18] But can you tell this committee what your plans are to make sure, number one, that we do a thorough review on a politically neutral basis, [1:04:30] making sure these are claims that are vetted claims, that they are real claims, that they are monies that should be paid according to our statutes and our regs, [1:04:40] and approach these in an efficient way and comply with the new law as the new administrator. [1:04:49] Thank you for the question, Senator. [1:04:50] And I would tell you that I deeply care about the needs of your constituents and all Americans across this country in getting timely assistance. [1:04:58] They deserve to have a government that is devoid of politics, that is able to execute the mission, first and foremost. [1:05:02] What I will state is that some of the tools and technology that FEMA uses is a bit antiquated that would help facilitate this with better care [1:05:10] and would actually provide the customer service that I think is appropriate for every survivor. [1:05:14] Right now, there's a lot of difficulty with survivors understanding where they fall in that FEMA circle of death that I talk about with where their claim is and how it's adjudicated. [1:05:22] As well as cities and counties? [1:05:24] That's correct. [1:05:24] And do you believe that you can use that new law, that TRAC Act, the accountability that's built into that, and implement that in a way that will help in this? [1:05:33] I believe that right now FEMA is currently taking steps to implement some of those same approaches, and it would be my focus, if confirmed, to ensure that we remain consistent. [1:05:42] Yes, I do believe that additional legislation, as you've mentioned, would be exceedingly helpful in doing that. [1:05:48] If confirmed, I'm planning to do a significant IT overhaul of the entire agency for better accountability. [1:05:53] Thank you so much. [1:05:54] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:05:56] Senator Gallego. [1:06:00] Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Member. [1:06:02] Mr. Hamilton, the FEMA Review Council has recommended raising cost thresholds and creating a new minimum annual standard expenditure requirement before federal disasters. [1:06:10] We kind of already talked about that already. [1:06:12] Specifically, what I worry about, because it doesn't make it very hard for Western states. [1:06:16] We are low-density Western states like Arizona to qualify for a lot of this support. [1:06:21] This could be very difficult, especially when disasters hit our rural counties and our tribal lands, [1:06:26] or even smaller communities with limited tax bases. [1:06:28] And the reason we have limited tax bases is because we're surrounded by federal land. [1:06:32] So there's not really much of any way for us to actually raise the threshold that we need to meet to get the match. [1:06:37] How would you ensure that FEMA's declaration criteria does not disadvantage states like Arizona, [1:06:42] where the damage may be severe locally, but spread across a large geographic area? [1:06:47] We saw this recently with the towns of Miami and Globe in Arizona. [1:06:52] Well, Senator, thank you for the question. [1:06:55] I think you've indicated a really unique facet of emergency management that has to be looked at and evaluated. [1:07:00] What I can tell you is that my objectives, if confirmed, would be to work with both senators, members of Congress, [1:07:06] as well as the American public to better understand how to serve the needs of Americans facing these high-consequence events. [1:07:11] My approach would be to be very deliberative. [1:07:14] If any re-evaluation on thresholds were to be discussed and entertained, [1:07:18] much of those parameters have been going back for decades without evaluation and updating. [1:07:24] I do believe in a prorated or a per capita basis that should also take into consideration rural communities [1:07:29] in addition to high population density communities. [1:07:32] But even rural communities, just to be clear, like rural communities east of the Mississippi [1:07:35] are entirely different than rural communities west of the Mississippi. [1:07:38] East of the Mississippi, you have very little federal land. [1:07:40] Rural communities west of the Mississippi are, you know, my state, for example, is 65% tribal and federal land. [1:07:46] If you go up to Utah, Nevada, they can get up to 90%. [1:07:49] So even when you guys do set FEMA parameters, it's a very east coast bias or even a west coast bias, [1:07:55] but certainly not a western, you know, bias where we have a lot of federal land [1:08:00] that's locking up our ability to actually expand our tax base. [1:08:03] But thank you for at least looking deeper into that to actually trying to understand that. [1:08:06] The FEMA Review Council's recommendations focus heavily on event-based disasters like hurricane or earthquakes. [1:08:12] But our biggest risk in Arizona is wildfire, post-fire flooding, drought, extreme heat, [1:08:18] and cascading infrastructure impacts that come from all that. [1:08:20] So there's a huge gap between recommendations and what such often look, again, for western states. [1:08:25] Do you believe the Stafford Act and FEMA programs need to be better account for slow-onset and compounding disasters? [1:08:30] Would you support reforms that explicitly preserve fire management assistance grants, [1:08:34] strengthen post-fire mitigation, and improve eligibility for drought and heat-related impacts? [1:08:39] So post-fire mitigation for you non-westerners is if we have a forest fire, [1:08:44] that's really, you know, we could take care of the forest fire. [1:08:47] We'd have FEMA come and help us out. [1:08:48] Then also we have to go and replant, reseed before the rain comes [1:08:52] because then we could get massive flooding that comes in. [1:08:55] Sometimes FEMA does not pay for the replanting and reseeding of our forests, [1:09:00] which end up causing even greater disasters a year from now. [1:09:03] So that's specifically kind of what I'm thinking about when I talk about that. [1:09:08] Senator, another excellent question. [1:09:10] I think you bring up a unique context that many don't fully understand on the west coast. [1:09:14] I grew up on the west coast, so I very much appreciate what you've identified. [1:09:18] I've had families who've lost homes from fires and other significant natural disasters out west. [1:09:23] It is a unique paradigm. [1:09:24] My approach, if confirmed, will to ensure that disaster assistance flow quickly and rapidly [1:09:29] and that the objectives are clear, but also to ensure that our pre-disaster resilience, [1:09:33] I see resilience as an operational arm of what the agency can achieve. [1:09:38] And so those pre-disaster grants to actually engage in risk reduction and readiness activities [1:09:43] should be uniquely suited to handle the challenges and threats facing each state [1:09:48] on the nuanced issues that they face. [1:09:50] I mean, those grants matter, but just got to remember, you're dealing on scale of, like, you know, [1:09:55] for example, compare me to, like, Connecticut. [1:09:58] You know, I could fit almost 12 Connecticuts in Arizona. [1:10:00] I have one county that is bigger than, you know, New England, right? [1:10:03] So, like, you have to kind of keep the scope of that in mind. [1:10:06] And I guess just to close up from my time, it's like, I just want to make sure I emphasize [1:10:10] that one-size-fits-all approach to disaster response just is not working for the west. [1:10:14] And this is not a red state versus blue state or anything like that. [1:10:16] It's a western state, you know, especially western states that are largely occupied by federal land. [1:10:21] So we need to make sure that there's a system that takes account kind of the differences [1:10:25] of our states, the characteristics. [1:10:29] We need to take into account what that means and it provides really transparent and timely feedback [1:10:32] about how we could both comply for the grants as well as to be able to bring down some of the FEMA matches, [1:10:41] specifically dealing with the fact that we do not have the tax base that you're going to see [1:10:45] in most parts of any other, you know, any part of this country. [1:10:48] Thank you, and I'll go back. [1:10:52] Senator Hawley. [1:10:53] Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. [1:10:55] Congratulations to the nominees, and thank you for being here. [1:10:58] Mr. Hamilton, I'm going to show you a picture, if I could, just to get started here. [1:11:02] It's over my shoulder. [1:11:04] This is St. Louis. [1:11:05] This is a neighborhood in St. Louis, Missouri, last May. [1:11:11] This is following a series of massive tornadoes in the St. Louis region. [1:11:15] We also had quite a few tornadoes in southeast Missouri. [1:11:17] As you can see, the devastation is absolutely unbelievable. [1:11:20] I walk these streets myself. [1:11:22] You've got buildings completely destroyed, homes absolutely razed to the ground, [1:11:26] churches whose roofs were lifted off, whose sanctuaries were completely destroyed, [1:11:30] streets that were ripped up. [1:11:32] And the problem is, is that many of these neighborhoods don't look a lot different now [1:11:36] because in some cases they're still waiting for relief. [1:11:38] Now, FEMA, I'm glad to say that the president approved Missouri's disaster relief for FEMA, [1:11:44] and it did go out the door, which is terrific, but we had to wait a long time for it. [1:11:47] And the reason for that was FEMA at the time was very slow in getting on the ground, [1:11:53] in doing their damage assessments, and then making the recommendations to the White House [1:11:57] that under the statute are the necessary prerequisite for unlocking that aid. [1:12:02] And I wish I could say that this was a one-off, but it's not in my experience. [1:12:05] In my experience in the state of Missouri, when we have a natural disaster, FEMA is slow. [1:12:10] FEMA is often ill-informed. [1:12:12] FEMA does not interface well with residents. [1:12:14] I remember one incident when we had severe flooding, excuse me, flooding in the state a few years ago, [1:12:20] where FEMA not only took forever to get on the ground and get a disaster declaration ready to go for the president, [1:12:25] but also when it came to awarding individual aid, which was needed in these tornadoes too, by the way, [1:12:31] when it came to awarding individual aid, FEMA awarded individual aid to some farmers [1:12:34] whose houses have been completely destroyed and then later tried to claw it back. [1:12:39] I kid you not. [1:12:41] Went to the farmer and said, you know, actually, we know that you applied and we approved it [1:12:45] and we gave it to you several months ago, but we changed our minds and we want it all back. [1:12:49] I mean, you can't make this stuff up. [1:12:51] It is absolutely ridiculous. [1:12:53] So here's my question to you. [1:12:56] I think what your agency does is hugely important. [1:12:58] We know it is in the state of Missouri. [1:13:00] And by the way, we just had a bunch more tornadoes just a few weeks ago for which we need aid and relief. [1:13:05] My question is, will you come in and take the reins of this agency and make it actually work [1:13:10] for the people of my state and every state who, when they're facing these disasters, they need quick relief. [1:13:16] They need quick responses. [1:13:18] Our citizens need to know what's available to them, how to apply, how to get the relief they need. [1:13:23] Will you take the reins on this agency and start making it work? [1:13:27] Yes, Senator. [1:13:27] It would be my privilege and honor to serve the American people and to do just that. [1:13:31] Good. [1:13:31] I think it's absolutely vital, and I can't emphasize enough to you how important it is in my state. [1:13:35] I just want to ask you before I move on, I wrote to the president, [1:13:39] along with every other member of the Missouri delegation just a week and a half ago, [1:13:44] supporting my governor's request for disaster relief for those April tornadoes that I mentioned. [1:13:49] This is in process now, I believe, with the agency. [1:13:52] Will you work to expedite this, to cut red tape, to get these disaster declarations [1:13:57] when they're requested, to get them approved, to move them on up the chain, [1:14:00] so that this relief that is statutorily available can flow to neighborhoods like this who need it desperately? [1:14:06] Absolutely, Senator. [1:14:07] I think the disaster declaration process and also the federal mentorship that goes into it needs to be improved. [1:14:14] I believe states need to receive better customer service. [1:14:17] I have full faith and confidence in the FEMA workforce, but we can do better, [1:14:20] and there's a significant amount of areas where that process should be simplified, better understood, [1:14:25] and we owe you answers, I think, much faster. [1:14:27] Good. [1:14:27] That's music to my ears. [1:14:29] That's music to my ears, and I know it will be to the citizens of Missouri. [1:14:31] We do need better service. [1:14:34] We need it faster. [1:14:34] We need clearer direction, and folks need to be able to apply for their individual assistance, [1:14:40] understand what they're getting and when they're going to get it. [1:14:42] So I'm counting on you to make changes in all of those areas. [1:14:45] Mr. Cummins, it's great to see you. [1:14:47] Thank you for being willing to do this job. [1:14:48] I just want to give you a chance to respond to something that the Biden administration was doing at the time, [1:14:55] a year and a half ago now, two years ago, that at the time I thought was so ridiculous. [1:14:59] I actually wrote to the administrator at the time of TSA about this. [1:15:03] The Biden administration was allowing illegal aliens who did not have ID to use warrants for their arrest, [1:15:14] to use actual civil immigration arrest warrants as a valid form of identification to get on commercial flights. [1:15:23] Let me just say that again. [1:15:24] They were allowing illegal aliens to use immigration arrest warrants as a form of ID to get on commercial flights. [1:15:33] Meanwhile, your everyday law-abiding citizens, who maybe don't come from a state that had real ID or what have you, [1:15:41] they're having to wait in absurdly long lines. [1:15:43] They're having to go through all kinds of process, which your administration, assuming this Congress confirms you, [1:15:47] that your administration was having to process, you know, [1:15:49] your agents are having to do all this extra screening because somebody doesn't have a real ID tag. [1:15:53] But if you're an illegal immigrant and you have an arrest warrant right up to the front of the line, [1:15:58] I mean, that's just absurd, wouldn't you agree, number one? [1:16:01] Number two, tell me about how you intend to make this agency work better for the American people. [1:16:07] Thank you for the question, Mr. Senator. [1:16:08] And I do agree, and I thank you on your office and the chairman's office for investigating the weaponization [1:16:16] that was going on in TSA, for investigating these fraudulent ID verification that was happening. [1:16:24] And that is definitely going to stop and has already stopped under this administration. [1:16:28] And we'll continue to work with you all in the oversight of our agency. [1:16:33] Very good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:16:34] Senator Kim. [1:16:37] Thank you, Chairman. [1:16:38] Mr. Hamilton, I mean, I think you're hearing from a lot of my colleagues just the importance that FEMA plays [1:16:43] and the concerns that we have when it comes to disaster response. [1:16:47] As you mentioned, we have the FEMA Review Council moving forward on some recommendations saying full well [1:16:54] that FEMA should exist, that it's important that it exists, but that there are real reforms that could happen. [1:16:59] I wanted to ask if you can commit to this committee that you will work with Congress, work with us, [1:17:05] even for some of the things that don't necessarily require legislative fixes, [1:17:10] but that we can make sure we're doing this together [1:17:12] and to be able to make sure that it is in line with congressional intent. [1:17:15] Thank you, Senator. It would be my honor to. [1:17:18] If confirmed, I plan to release a 30-day report on my analysis and recommendations for the future, [1:17:25] areas where FEMA can reform, as well as also to take insight from both senators and members of Congress [1:17:31] on potential avenues for collaboration, further partnership. [1:17:35] And then in addition to that, I plan to have regular meetings and intervals with meeting with members and senators [1:17:40] to ensure that they have their answers questioned, excuse me, their questions answered on a timely basis. [1:17:45] We've dealt with a lot of issues over the course of the time that I've been in the Senate so far, [1:17:51] but I will say I really do believe that even in this time of great political divisiveness [1:17:55] that the issues about disaster response and about FEMA remain one of the ones [1:18:01] that I feel most hopeful that we can find some bipartisanship here. [1:18:05] We've had a number of good conversations amongst the senators in a bipartisan way. [1:18:11] It remains top of so many people's agendas. [1:18:14] So I just share that with you because I get it. [1:18:17] There are a lot of problems that are out there. [1:18:19] But when I think about what is it that government can do that no one else can do [1:18:22] or that its priority should be, I can think of nothing really more important [1:18:26] than being there for Americans on their hardest days. [1:18:30] And when I hear from these families, those that survived Superstorm Sandy [1:18:35] and other problems that we've encountered in New Jersey and around this country, [1:18:39] I think that this is just so important that we get right. [1:18:42] And we can't wait for some future Congress or some future administration [1:18:45] to be able to take action on this given the dynamics. [1:18:49] So I just urge you on that front. [1:18:51] When it comes to different programs on this, [1:18:53] I want to raise a nonprofit security grant program in particular [1:18:56] and ask you, do you feel like that is resourced to the level that is needed [1:19:01] or do you think that there's additional funds that are needed [1:19:03] for us to respond across this country? [1:19:07] Thank you for the question, Senator. [1:19:08] So the nonprofit security grant program that you're specifically referring to [1:19:11] supports churches, nonprofits, faith-based institutions. [1:19:15] I think that it has some challenges with the execution. [1:19:18] It also has some real opportunities and it's significantly blessed certain communities [1:19:21] with the ability to harden their own resilience. [1:19:24] I think all of that needs to be taken a look at. [1:19:26] And that would be an apportionment of that 30-day report [1:19:29] that I would hope to release to you and to all members [1:19:31] about recommendations for the future. [1:19:33] I think additional funding, what we found is that there's a significant amount [1:19:36] of feedback from these specific communities asking for additional help [1:19:40] and assistance and also to ensure that when the grant programs are approved [1:19:43] and awarded, that the money flow relatively quickly so that they can execute. [1:19:48] Right now it's funded last year, this past fiscal year, around $300 million. [1:19:52] Do you think it'd be wise for us to take that up, $500 million, $700 million? [1:19:57] Do you have a thought where we should land? [1:20:00] Well, before I give you a dollar amount, my hope would be to survey and query all the [1:20:05] different affected parties to have a better understanding of the metrics and data [1:20:09] as to far as how far that can go. [1:20:12] Then that will be a deliberative process where you, sir, would play a role in that, [1:20:15] in the needs of your constituents whereby the president would develop his budget, [1:20:19] the Senate and the House would develop their budgets, and then we would come to an agreement [1:20:22] for execution. [1:20:23] So before I give you a number... [1:20:25] Look, I just want to say, I'll work with you on this, but I just want to convey to you [1:20:29] the urgency with which I hear from my constituents. [1:20:32] I mean, and it's not just mine. [1:20:33] I mean, we see the rise of anti-Semitism surging across this country. [1:20:37] You know, I visited a temple that also has a school attached to it. [1:20:41] I mean, they are so worried about what's going to happen. [1:20:44] And it's not just our Jewish communities, just more broadly that we're seeing so much [1:20:49] fear right now. [1:20:52] And so I just wanted to convey that to you because I heard it directly from my constituents. [1:20:56] And the concerns that they have, honestly, it's persistent. [1:20:59] And that's something I think we have to think through when it comes to the nonprofit security [1:21:03] grant program. [1:21:04] It's not like just that these are needs that they will have once every five years or seven [1:21:08] years to be able to upgrade cameras. [1:21:10] And this is now the highest line item on the budget of so many of these institutions, whether [1:21:18] it's anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, or other things that are out there that people are worried [1:21:23] about. [1:21:24] I think that just the sheer amount that our nation spends when it comes to national security [1:21:28] abroad, and I've worked counterterrorism work before, where is the urgency that we put [1:21:33] behind it here at home to try to make sure that people are safe? [1:21:37] So I just, is that something you promised you'll work with me on? [1:21:40] Absolutely, Senator. [1:21:42] I had a conversation with Senator Schlagen yesterday about her community, specifically [1:21:46] on this topic, about finding avenues that we could approach to ensure that these faith-based [1:21:51] institutions that are eligible grant recipients, that they can use those resources in the most [1:21:57] effective way possible so as to stretch dollars even further. [1:21:59] But also on that persisting need, right? [1:22:01] That's correct. [1:22:02] Okay. [1:22:02] With that, I'll yield back. [1:22:03] Mr. Cummins, I have never won the lottery, but I seem to defy the odds with getting random [1:22:11] searches. [1:22:12] Sometimes I get them both coming and going, coming from Tennessee, going back home. [1:22:16] It's amazing. [1:22:17] It's incredible how I defy the odds. [1:22:19] They assure me that it's nothing personal, that it's random. [1:22:22] And my concern is not for me, but it's really for everyone. [1:22:25] If you want to do random searches and you're catching terrorists, by all means, let's do [1:22:30] it. [1:22:30] But you should give us some statistics. [1:22:32] I've met with the acting director several times. [1:22:34] I've been asking for statistics. [1:22:36] So you go through the magnetometer. [1:22:38] It doesn't go off because you don't have any metal, but you've been selected. [1:22:42] You know, with a cheerful smile, you've been selected. [1:22:45] You get to go to the AIT machine. [1:22:48] So you go through the AIT machine, and do you know what percentage of people are selected [1:22:51] to be patted down? [1:22:53] Up until a month ago, 50% of the people going through the machine were patted down. [1:22:57] You might as well flip a coin. [1:22:58] It's a completely worthless test if 50% of the people are being selected. [1:23:03] And so when you get selected, you get patted down. [1:23:06] So here's my question. [1:23:07] You go through the magnetometer. [1:23:08] You have no metal. [1:23:10] You go through the AIT. [1:23:11] It selects you. [1:23:13] How many people that got picked for the random searches actually have something of danger, [1:23:19] something that we really, oh my goodness, the random selection. [1:23:21] It was really good because we found they had a plastic gun or they had a plastic knife [1:23:25] or they had plastic explosives. [1:23:28] So I've asked them that, and they said they don't have the statistics. [1:23:30] They don't know. [1:23:32] And see, if you're going to, because now we have an increased risk, [1:23:35] we're increasing the random searches. [1:23:36] They're just every other person going through. [1:23:38] You see the bug going up. [1:23:40] You've been selected. [1:23:41] And then you go through a machine that 50% of the people are being selected. [1:23:44] The machine, the World League machine, the AIT, is, I think, a worthless machine. [1:23:48] Now, they fixed the algorithm recently. [1:23:51] Now it's a third. [1:23:52] I don't know why they didn't fix it before. [1:23:54] They finally went from 50% to 30-some-odd percent. [1:23:57] But here's what the TSA responds. [1:24:00] They say, well, oh, well, we felt something. [1:24:02] There wasn't anything there, but it was a fold in your clothing. [1:24:05] Well, that's a false positive. [1:24:06] Oh, no, no, no. [1:24:07] There was something there. [1:24:08] So they count everything detected as a real thing. [1:24:11] No, a real thing is when you find a real thing. [1:24:14] Most of these pat-downs are for a fold in your clothes, a piece of paper in your pocket. [1:24:18] Those are false positives. [1:24:20] But we have to study these things. [1:24:22] And so they've indicated maybe they will, but I've gotten nowhere. [1:24:24] I've gotten no studies. [1:24:26] I still want to know, and this may be a classified number, but I don't think it's a big number. [1:24:31] I think it's probably less than 10. [1:24:32] How many plastic guns? [1:24:34] How many plastic explosives were found last year? [1:24:36] From that, we could also ask where were they found? [1:24:39] Were they found going through the machine with the luggage or were they found on the person? [1:24:43] Really, you should ask the question, and you should have some kind of ability to collect data [1:24:49] so you find out how many are collected randomly. [1:24:51] I think the number is zero. [1:24:53] I really think for the millions of people selected, I don't think you've ever found a knife [1:24:58] or a weapon on them because it would be found in that magnetometer if it's metal. [1:25:01] The only thing you would find is you select someone randomly out of a needle, [1:25:05] out of a stack, and then you find that they have something plastic. [1:25:08] So, I don't know if you know anything about this subject, but I would appreciate somebody [1:25:13] looking into it because, you know, almost everybody goes through the AIT, gets patted down. [1:25:18] 50% were being patted down, which means it's not a very good test, but it's also just harassing [1:25:23] the traveler, and these aren't the people that you're worried about. [1:25:27] I would spend more time studying the manifest to see who's traveling and what kind of characteristics [1:25:31] they might have to be a threat to the country. [1:25:34] Do you know anything about the random selection program? [1:25:37] Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman. [1:25:40] You know, I know as someone with a background in transportation, 25 years, and technology, [1:25:46] it's one of the reasons I was nominated was my background both with hardware and software [1:25:51] implementations in transportation. [1:25:54] And what you're describing is concerning, that you, in particular, called out so many times randomly. [1:26:02] It really isn't about me. [1:26:03] It isn't about me, but I'm an example of a frequent traveler. [1:26:06] And so what I would say is that every instance that someone is patted down is an inefficiency if they are not a security threat, correct? [1:26:18] And so the new technology that is going to be implemented hopefully will have much less false positives, much greater fidelity than what exists today. [1:26:29] But we have to study it. [1:26:30] But in the meantime. [1:26:31] We have to study it and find out. [1:26:33] Yeah. [1:26:33] I mean, 50 percent of people being patted down is an unacceptable number. [1:26:37] That means everybody, because the general screening, everybody's going through the AIT. [1:26:42] And if it finds something, when it finds a little yellow box and it puts it on your body, you get a pat down. [1:26:48] Talk about slowing traffic. [1:26:49] And what a waste of effort if you're not finding anything. [1:26:52] So really, you should say, OK, 50 percent of people got patted down and they're not going through a magnetometer. [1:26:58] So now how many times did you find a gun or a knife? [1:27:00] I think it's close to zero. [1:27:02] And that's good that it's a very small number. [1:27:04] I think actually most of those are found with luggage going through. [1:27:06] You know, they're accidents. [1:27:07] They're people who made a mistake, you know. [1:27:11] But, you know, will you help us? [1:27:13] Will you study the question? [1:27:14] Will you get back with us? [1:27:15] The classified numbers I asked for just a couple weeks ago, but that should take a day and they should send them back to me. [1:27:20] I want to know because I think it's going to be a very, very small number. [1:27:23] They indicated it probably is a small number, but we shouldn't be patting down 50 percent of the people who went through general screening. [1:27:30] That's probably a bigger problem than the random selection. [1:27:32] But randomly selecting people out of the – the only thing that's made travel OK for business travelers was pre-check. [1:27:38] Before pre-check, it was a misery. [1:27:41] Pre-check was the best thing they ever did, and it allowed people to travel all the time who are not risked to go through quicker. [1:27:47] But if all the people going through the general are being patted down, it's just not – it's not efficient. [1:27:53] Did you have anything to add to that? [1:27:54] Well, I will – we'll commit to you today to look into this, if confirmed, and communicate it back to you personally. [1:28:03] No. [1:28:03] We're going to go to the next panel, but I'll ask Senator Peters two or three minutes one question. [1:28:08] Do you have anything else on this panel? [1:28:14] Not five. [1:28:15] Two to three. [1:28:16] Thank you, panel, and do I have a concluding remarks here? [1:28:25] Okay. [1:28:26] With that, this concludes our first panel. [1:28:28] I'd like to thank our witnesses for participating in today's hearing. [1:28:31] We will now transition to our second panel. [1:28:33] I invite the next panel of witnesses to please come forward and take their seats. [1:28:36] We will proceed immediately. [1:28:44] So do I have a new one now? [1:28:48] This is the old one. [1:31:45] We're going to go ahead and get started. [1:31:46] We will now resume consideration of the remaining witnesses. [1:31:49] Bradford Wilson to be the archivist for the National Archives and Records Administration. [1:31:55] Don Bertheum to be the Inspector General for the Department of Justice. [1:32:00] Jeffrey Brodsky to be the Governor of the U.S. Postal Service. [1:32:03] William Gallo to be a Governor of the U.S. Postal Service. [1:32:06] James Woodruff II to be Chairman of the Merit Systems Protection Board. [1:32:11] And Charlton Allen to be the General Counsel for the Federal Labor Relations Board. [1:32:15] The witness's statements have been submitted for the record, [1:32:17] and I ask unanimous consent to submit letters of support received for the nominees. [1:32:22] It is the practice of the committee to swear in the witnesses. [1:32:25] For the nominees, please stand and raise your right hand. [1:32:29] Do you swear that the testimony you will give before this committee will be the truth, [1:32:32] the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? [1:32:34] So help you God. [1:32:37] It's a standard practice of this committee for the chairman to ask the nominees the following question, [1:32:40] and we'll do it individually. [1:32:42] Do you agree without reservation to comply with any request or summons [1:32:45] to appear and testify before any duly constituted committee of Congress if you are confirmed? [1:32:51] Mr. Wilson. [1:32:53] Mr. Berthium. [1:32:55] Yes, sir. [1:32:56] Berthium. [1:32:56] Berthium. [1:32:57] There we go. [1:32:58] Easy. [1:32:59] Mr. Brodsky. [1:33:00] Mr. Gallo. [1:33:02] Mr. Woodruff. [1:33:03] Mr. Allen. [1:33:04] Yes, sir. [1:33:05] We will now proceed to five-minute questions, and we will start with Senator Johnson. [1:33:11] Hey, Mr. Chairman. [1:33:12] Mr. Berthium. [1:33:14] I appreciate the coaching there. [1:33:16] I think you're probably aware that Senator Grassley and I have been investigating the whole [1:33:20] crossfire hurricane investigation, and we have been trying to obtain the written transcripts [1:33:28] from the report titled Review of the Four FISA Applications and Other Aspects of the FBI [1:33:33] Crossfire Hurricane Investigation. [1:33:35] Now, sir, I understand there were over about 170 transcripts. [1:33:39] We got zero from the Biden administration. [1:33:43] We wrote to Attorney General Bondi and FBI Director Cash Patel to obtain those. [1:33:50] Now we've obtained 19. [1:33:53] Do you have any idea why we have the hangup, why we don't have all of them, and will you [1:33:58] commit to making sure that we do get all of those? [1:34:01] Sure. [1:34:01] As an initial matter, Senator, I am committed to getting all those transcripts to you and [1:34:05] Senator Grassley. [1:34:06] One of the struggles that we've been dealing with is there's multiple agencies that have [1:34:11] to review those transcripts before we can release them. [1:34:14] OIG does not have the ability to declassify transcripts or identify other people's equities, [1:34:19] and so we have to rely on other agencies to review the transcripts and identify any equities [1:34:24] that they may have. [1:34:25] And that's been something that we've been working on overcoming over the last several weeks, [1:34:29] developing a process to get those to you more quickly and more efficiently. [1:34:33] So we will, and we do a pretty good job of working for accommodations, that type of thing, but [1:34:39] we really want to prioritize. [1:34:40] So, you know, the priorities for us are the transcripts of James Comey, James Baker, Andrew McCabe, [1:34:47] Peter Strzok, Joseph Pienka. [1:34:49] So, again, if confirmed, I'd like you to work very closely with my staff to prioritize those, get those, [1:34:57] go through that interagency process of reviewing their equities. [1:35:01] But, you know, bottom line, we're Congress. [1:35:04] We have rights to this information, unredacted, and we really will expect that you do provide those to us. [1:35:11] No, absolutely, Senator. [1:35:12] We are, it's certainly a priority already. [1:35:14] We're aware of that. [1:35:14] We're working closely with your staff, and we're exerting the amount of pressure that we can in our position [1:35:19] to help those folks move them along more efficiently for you all. [1:35:23] Okay, well, I appreciate that. [1:35:24] No further questions. [1:35:26] Senator Peters. [1:35:28] Thank you, Mr. President, or Mr. Chairman. [1:35:30] This is for Mr. Galeo and Brodsky, to both of you. [1:35:38] Do you support, we'll start with Mr. Brodsky first, do you support privatizing the mail [1:35:44] and package delivery operations of the Postal Service? [1:35:48] It's just a yes or no answer. [1:35:50] I put it closer to your mouth, please. [1:35:54] Yeah, I don't really have a view on whether or not privatizing it would make any sense or not. [1:35:58] I'd be happy to listen to. [1:36:00] You have no view of that at this point? [1:36:01] I know, I've heard people talk about it, but I really have not reviewed that as a possibility. [1:36:07] Okay, so it has been a major issue for a long time, but you, even though you're appointed for the, [1:36:11] or being nominated for this, you've not thought about it. [1:36:13] Okay, Mr. Galeo. [1:36:15] I am not for privatizing the Post Office. [1:36:19] I think it's fixable. [1:36:21] So you're opposed to privatizing? [1:36:24] Would you say so? [1:36:25] Did you say you're opposed to privatizing? [1:36:26] No, I would not privatize the Post Office. [1:36:30] You would not? [1:36:32] No. [1:36:32] Okay, I just want to be clear. [1:36:34] So you're, that's a, that's a no for you. [1:36:36] Uh, Mr. Rotsky, um, you know, I represent a very diverse, uh, state, including many very [1:36:42] rural communities. [1:36:43] And the, the Postal Service is a lifeline for those communities, without question, [1:36:47] vital goods, prescriptions, all the things that, that happen. [1:36:50] And, and most folks believe that privatizing basically means we're going to, we'll have it [1:36:54] very difficult for our rural communities to get the kind of service they're, they're getting [1:36:57] right now. [1:36:58] So do you think those consequences are unacceptable? [1:37:01] That if rural folks are hurt as a result of privatization, that you would think that that [1:37:05] is probably as a strong argument against privatizing? [1:37:08] Yeah, I would. [1:37:09] Look, there's other reasons why privatizing may be difficult too. [1:37:12] I mean, just look at the financial condition of the Postal Service, uh, with all the unfunded, [1:37:17] uh, retiree benefits, you know, it's a huge amount of money. [1:37:21] You'd have to pay somebody to take it. [1:37:23] And I, I don't think that's necessarily practical, and I think you'd also lose control over, over [1:37:29] this organization. [1:37:30] Somebody who's running it as a private enterprise would look to cut unprofitable routes, and [1:37:35] clearly, we have to- [1:37:37] That would be rural routes. [1:37:38] We don't, we don't, we have to, we have to, as, um, as, uh, Vice Chairman Taub said at [1:37:46] the Postal Regulatory Commission this past, uh, couple weeks ago, June 4th, that we have [1:37:52] to get together and talk about what the Universal Service obligation is, and what it should [1:37:57] be. [1:37:58] Okay, good. [1:37:59] I appreciate that. [1:38:00] I appreciate that line. [1:38:01] Question to both of you, too. [1:38:02] Do, do you believe that the Postal Service, we'll start with you, Mr. Gallo, we'll go, [1:38:04] we'll start back and forth here. [1:38:06] Does the Postal Service have the authority to refuse, uh, to, uh, uh, mail absentee ballots [1:38:13] that are sent to voters by election officials? [1:38:16] No. [1:38:17] No. [1:38:18] I, I agree, no. [1:38:19] Pardon me? [1:38:20] No. [1:38:21] No. [1:38:26] Okay, good. [1:38:27] Congress, uh, established the, uh, Merit Systems Protection Board as part of the, uh, [1:38:33] same 1978 law to ensure that the president and, uh, political leaders in the executive [1:38:38] branch cannot fire, uh, or punish federal employees for political, arbitrary, or personal reasons. [1:38:46] Uh, in your view, is it the job of the Merit Systems Protection Board to determine when the [1:38:52] executive branch needs to actually follow civil service laws passed by Congress and when it [1:38:58] can just ignore them? [1:39:00] It is up to the board to protect those protections that have been brought. [1:39:05] And that's what we look at when we're deciding these cases and having them brought before [1:39:09] us is what did Congress give us as far as authority goes? [1:39:15] And within that small jurisdiction, whether or not, uh, we have the authority to act. [1:39:21] And that's really how confined we keep it. [1:39:23] It doesn't go out. [1:39:24] If it's in the law, you, you don't have the ability to make a decision whether or not it's [1:39:28] constitutional. [1:39:29] That's correct. [1:39:30] Because I, you know, I, it, certainly I agree with you. [1:39:31] That's the duty of the, the board, uh, to enforce civil service laws as passed by Congress. [1:39:35] But I'm troubled by the procedural ruling in March of 26 where, uh, uh, actually, uh, the [1:39:42] board made the decision that they can determine what law is constitutional or not. [1:39:46] You'd agree that the board does not have that authority under our U.S. Constitution, that [1:39:50] they get to determine what's constitutional, what's not. [1:39:51] And Senator Peters, which specific case are you referencing? [1:39:54] Uh, it is, uh, Jack Lear versus, uh, JARAC v. DOJ. [1:40:00] Yeah, as far as that case goes, it's ongoing pending litigation with the federal circuit, [1:40:05] and therefore I can't really comment on that. [1:40:08] Professor Wilson, uh, at the, uh, uh, at the end of his first term in office, President [1:40:12] Trump unlawfully took, uh, presidential records, including classified, uh, information to his, [1:40:19] uh, private residence. [1:40:21] How will you work to ensure that such violation of the Presidential Records Act, which is a very [1:40:26] clear violation, does not occur at the end of his second term, if confirmed? [1:40:32] Thank you for that question, Senator. [1:40:35] I'm a rule of law man, and I intend to follow the law, including on the subject of the disposition [1:40:42] of federal records, sir. [1:40:44] Thank you. [1:40:49] I see in attendance more kids than I've ever seen for a nomination hearing, and I want [1:40:54] to know who's responsible for them. [1:40:58] So all right, if, if I see some fingers pointing to Professor Wilson, we have some time, so I'm [1:41:03] going to let Professor Wilson, uh, you, if you remember everybody's name, you can introduce [1:41:07] them all, or you could introduce the, if it's more than one family, who's [1:41:10] here to support you. [1:41:11] Thank you, uh, Senator Paul, and I want to thank you, uh, for being willing to meet with [1:41:17] me, uh, before this. [1:41:20] Uh, yes, I have my three children with me, Nathan, uh, Lauren, and Julia, and they've got [1:41:26] all of their children with them, so I won't name them all. [1:41:29] How many, how many grandkids do you have here? [1:41:31] So let's see, four for Nathan, five for Lauren, and two, and one on the way for Julia. [1:41:38] All right. [1:41:39] Awesome. [1:41:40] Thank you for helping to populate the earth. [1:41:42] That is just, and since we did it for one nominee, does any other nominee have family [1:41:45] here that they'd like to introduce? [1:41:47] We'll just go down the row if anybody has a wife, family. [1:41:50] Uh, none for me, Senator. [1:41:51] Okay. [1:41:54] Thank you. [1:41:57] Dr. Paul, I would like to thank my family who's watching. [1:42:00] They couldn't be here today. [1:42:02] My wife, Stephanie, and my three sons, I'm also helping populate the earth. [1:42:08] James, William, and Jack. [1:42:09] They're very busy, and they keep us all going all the time. [1:42:13] So. [1:42:14] Right? [1:42:22] You're trying. [1:42:23] That's good. [1:42:24] Uh, but, uh, thank you, uh, Senator Hawley. [1:42:28] Thank you very much, uh, Mr. Chairman, and congratulations to the nominees. [1:42:31] Thanks for being here. [1:42:32] I want to start by talking a little bit about the Postal Service. [1:42:34] Um, but let me start with a concern, a longstanding concern that my constituents and I have, and [1:42:41] it's been expressed time and time again. [1:42:43] Large parts of Missouri are serviced only by the Postal Service. [1:42:46] You know, private, uh, entities don't come to many rural parts of my state. [1:42:51] Sixty-eight percent of my state is rural. [1:42:53] Sixty-eight percent of it is serviced by the Postal Service. [1:42:56] In many cases, the Postal Service alone. [1:42:58] And, uh, it is absolutely vital to me that the Postal Service remain, continue its commitment [1:43:04] to servicing all parts of the nation, including rural areas. [1:43:07] They not be disadvantaged vis-a-vis urban areas. [1:43:09] Let me show you a poster here. [1:43:11] This is the plan put forward by the last Postmaster General. [1:43:17] Supposedly a, uh, reform plan. [1:43:20] Regional Transportation Optimization Plan. [1:43:22] I get very nervous, by the way, anytime bureaucrats start talking about optimization. [1:43:25] That usually means cutting out people who can least afford it. [1:43:28] In this case, if you look at the yellow areas, the yellow areas would receive regular service [1:43:34] and delivery. [1:43:35] The blue areas would see their own delivery services reduced. [1:43:40] In fact, by the Postal Service's own estimate, the number of first-class pieces of mail that [1:43:47] would be available and would flow on a regular basis to these blue areas would be reduced quite [1:43:53] significantly. [1:43:54] The problem is, as you can see, if you look at my state of Missouri there, it's almost [1:43:57] all blue. [1:43:58] It's almost all blue. [1:44:00] Which is one of the reasons why the Missouri Farm Bureau, among many other organizations [1:44:03] that represent rural Missouri, oppose this plan. [1:44:07] So, let me just start by asking those of you who are nominated to the Postal Service [1:44:12] to the governing board, will you support the continuing mandated mission of the Postal Service [1:44:19] to serve the entire country, including the mandate to deliver the mail to rural America, [1:44:24] rural Missouri included? [1:44:26] Will you protect that and make sure that that's a top priority? [1:44:28] Go ahead. [1:44:29] We can start with you, Mr. Brodsky. [1:44:31] Yes, Senator Hawley, absolutely. [1:44:33] I think that, again, as Postmaster General Steiner said, we have to—he's rolled out these [1:44:42] systems, but they need to figure out how to operate it properly. [1:44:45] But I can tell you that, if confirmed, I view very strongly that all of the rural areas [1:44:50] should be served properly, and I will request that management focus on making that happen. [1:44:55] Good. [1:44:56] I understand that—that service levels have declined as they've rolled out DFA, and I [1:45:01] think we have to figure out why and what it's going to—what they're going to do to fix [1:45:05] it. [1:45:06] Good. [1:45:08] Scale. [1:45:09] I totally agree that the rural area should be served out of doubt. [1:45:15] Good. [1:45:16] Good. [1:45:17] That's absolutely vitally important to me, and I can tell you, I think it's—it's vital [1:45:20] for all of us who represent states that have rural areas. [1:45:23] Can I just ask you, since I've got you both here, just another question in this—in this [1:45:27] vein about the expenditures of the U.S. Postal Service. [1:45:30] I mean, everybody knows the Postal Service lost about $25 billion over the last three [1:45:34] fiscal years, despite internal reports that it would only run a $17 billion deficit. [1:45:40] The current management of the Postal Service projects a loss of, I think, $8 billion for [1:45:44] fiscal year 2026. [1:45:46] This has become quite routine. [1:45:49] Here's what I want to ask you about. [1:45:50] Over the last three years that the last Postmaster General was in office, Mr. DeJoy, the Board [1:45:54] of Governors approved $567,000 in bonuses for him. [1:46:00] Why is that? [1:46:03] I mean, why is it that when the Postal Service as a corporation, as an entity, is missing [1:46:09] its internal projections, when my constituents are being asked to accept deliveries that are [1:46:14] slow, that are not on time, there's no accountability, when I've got rural postmasters who are fearing [1:46:21] for their jobs, but yet the Postmaster General is getting bonuses? [1:46:25] Why is that? [1:46:26] I mean, tell me what you think about that. [1:46:28] I can't tell you why the Board previously approved those kinds of bonuses, but I can [1:46:33] tell you that, under my view, management's going to be held accountable. [1:46:38] We have to come up with a new plan, a long-term plan. [1:46:41] I know that Postmaster Steiner indicated he's prepared to do that, and I think that they're [1:46:46] probably working on it right now. [1:46:48] And I think they need to be goal-set, and in the event they don't hit their goals, they're [1:46:51] not going to get those bonuses. [1:46:52] At least I won't support them. [1:46:53] Okay, good. [1:46:54] So you're saying that you would not support additional compensation of bonuses if the Postal [1:46:57] Service continues to run these deficits, and in my state, let me just put a finer point [1:47:02] on this. [1:47:03] So long as my state continues to suffer the kind of incredible backlogs that it is suffering, [1:47:07] and I've mentioned rural Missouri, but it's our cities too. [1:47:10] It's Kansas City, it's St. Louis, on the east and west parts of the state, and then it's [1:47:14] all of rural Missouri. [1:47:15] I mean, they are suffering massive delays. [1:47:17] Three, four, five, six days in rural Missouri, sometimes it's weeks. [1:47:20] It's outrageous. [1:47:21] It's been going on for years now, and frankly, I think it's indefensible that we're paying out these [1:47:26] bonuses when my constituents, who are paying their taxes faithfully and they're paying [1:47:31] their Postal Service, the stamps and everything else, all the rates, they can't get the mail. [1:47:35] So I guess my question to you is, will you cease to vote for bonuses for management until [1:47:40] the mail gets delivered on time to the state of Missouri and everywhere else? [1:47:44] Mr. Brodsky. [1:47:45] I would support putting in place metrics that management must perform to. [1:47:50] And I would not support paying bonuses at those levels. [1:47:54] It might be a much lower level that's acceptable. [1:47:56] I don't know if it's zero. [1:47:58] I think it's something we have to look at on a case-by-case basis. [1:48:02] But if they don't meet their goals, they shouldn't be getting paid. [1:48:06] Well, why should there be any bonus? [1:48:08] We're not talking about withholding their salary. [1:48:09] Why should they be getting bonuses if people aren't getting the mail delivered? [1:48:13] Mr. Well, there's compensation theory that you have to look at in terms of, you know, [1:48:18] you have to pay people appropriately. [1:48:20] Yeah, you don't pay them to not do their work. [1:48:22] And if people in Missouri aren't getting the mail, why should the Postmaster General be getting a bonus? [1:48:26] Mr. Postal Service is a very – I agree with you that if they're not meeting their objectives, [1:48:30] they should not get bonuses. [1:48:31] Mr. And the objective is to deliver the mail. [1:48:33] And I will just say for the record, so long as the people of Missouri aren't getting their mail, [1:48:37] I don't want the Postmaster General or any other bureaucrat in Washington getting a bonus. [1:48:42] I want the mail delivered to Missouri on time in every community that we are entitled to by law. [1:48:49] And until that happens, I don't want anybody getting a bonus. [1:48:52] Will you commit to that, Mr. Gallo? [1:48:54] Mr. Absolutely. [1:48:57] It makes no sense to be giving a bonus to him or any of the management people [1:49:03] if you're not performing the services. [1:49:05] If you're losing money, it makes no sense to me. [1:49:08] In the private industry, that would not happen. [1:49:10] That's exactly right. [1:49:11] And that's exactly the standard I want to see. [1:49:12] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:49:13] So we had this discussion years ago, and the response they gave me, Senator Holley, was, [1:49:17] well, to have talent, you've got to really pay people to have talent. [1:49:20] And my response was, how much talent does it take to lose $9 billion a year? [1:49:25] So I agree with you. [1:49:26] There's no reason. [1:49:27] You don't give people a bonus for losing $9 billion. [1:49:29] We shifted $107 billion to the general fund. [1:49:33] That was the reform. [1:49:34] We just took it from one account, put it in another, and they're still losing $9 billion. [1:49:38] It's an absolute and utter failure. [1:49:41] Senator Blumenthal. [1:49:44] Thanks, Mr. Chairman. [1:49:47] I think we have bipartisan agreement, no bonuses for failure. [1:49:51] Would you agree with that principle, Mr. Brodsky? [1:49:53] Yes. [1:49:54] Yes, sir. [1:49:55] And Mr. Gallo. [1:49:56] Yes, sir. [1:49:57] Mr. Berthiam, you are nominated for one of the most critical jobs in the United States government, [1:50:09] which is to assure the independence integrity of the Department of Justice. [1:50:14] Would you agree with me that independence is absolutely essential in that role? [1:50:21] Independence is absolutely essential to the Office of the Inspector General's role, yes. [1:50:26] And you've served as Inspector General or you've been involved in Inspector General activities in other departments, correct? [1:50:33] I've been part of the Inspector General community for almost 16 years now. [1:50:37] And you would agree with me that resisting weaponization or politicization of the Department of Justice [1:50:45] will be a critical part of your role? [1:50:48] I think it's a critical part of the Office of Inspector General's role to assess and evaluate the Department's functioning of its responsibilities, yes. [1:50:58] So let me test your independence. [1:51:03] Who won the 2020 election? [1:51:05] Joe Biden, as certified by the Senate. [1:51:07] No, Mr. Berthamu. [1:51:12] Who won the 2020 election? [1:51:15] We have seen that script. [1:51:16] By the way, you should check with the White House. [1:51:19] That script has been abandoned. [1:51:22] They have a new one. [1:51:24] Well, my understanding from the 2020 election is we had an election. [1:51:29] And who won it? [1:51:30] Joe Biden was certified the winner of that election. [1:51:33] That is a fact. [1:51:34] Who won the popular vote? [1:51:35] From what I recall in reporting at the time, that was Joe Biden. [1:51:38] And who won the Electoral College in the 2020 election? [1:51:43] Again, my recollection, and he served as president, Joe Biden, would have been certified the winner of the Electoral College vote as well. [1:51:52] Did you discuss your answers to these questions with the White House before coming here today? [1:51:56] No. [1:51:57] Let me ask you, was the Capitol attacked on January 6th? [1:52:03] I don't know if I would use the term attacked. [1:52:07] I mean, we had activity outside the Capitol, protests and such, and there was violence on the Capitol grounds. [1:52:13] You have to be now the author of the most obvious understatement that there was activity outside the Capitol on January 6th. [1:52:27] Was it attacked? [1:52:28] You've seen the videos. [1:52:30] You're supposed to be the inspector general. [1:52:34] Capitol police were injured. [1:52:36] Some died. [1:52:37] Was the Capitol attacked? [1:52:39] So, again, it's more a term that you're using attacked. [1:52:43] There was protest activity. [1:52:44] There was violence on Capitol grounds. [1:52:46] Those people were prosecuted. [1:52:48] Well, there was protest activity? [1:52:54] There was protest activity. [1:52:56] People went to the Capitol grounds. [1:52:58] People entered the Capitol building, which is contrary, as far as I know, to law. [1:53:02] But you wouldn't agree with me that the Capitol was attacked? [1:53:05] I just don't agree with the term attack. [1:53:07] When I think of attack- [1:53:08] Were police officers attacked on that day? [1:53:11] There was physical violence outside the Capitol that day. [1:53:14] But the Capitol police weren't attacked? [1:53:18] So- [1:53:20] What is it about that word that so troubles you? [1:53:23] It's not that I'm troubled by it. [1:53:25] The term attack, to me, seems to imply like there was a coordinated effort to attack specific things. [1:53:31] Let me ask you- [1:53:32] There was physical violence associated with protest activity. [1:53:34] I regard these kinds of questions as a test of your prospective independence. [1:53:41] And so far, I think you're failing that test. [1:53:45] Okay. [1:53:46] And I hope my colleagues will agree that the Inspector General of the Department of Justice [1:53:53] should recognize reality and facts for what they are and be willing to call them out for what they are. [1:54:01] Let me ask you, can you assure me, if you're confirmed, that your office will conduct a thorough investigation to allegations that Director Patel engaged in drinking and absences that have interfered with his ability to do his job? [1:54:19] What I can commit to is to assess the allegations, run them through the analysis that we do, and we're going to decide whether or not to open up a case. [1:54:26] And we'll see if there's work to do in that arena. [1:54:28] Will you commit that you will complete the audit and inquiry that has begun into the concealment of the Epstein files? [1:54:38] You'll recall that Senator Murkowski and I wrote you asking for the audit? [1:54:42] You agreed to do it? [1:54:43] We'll finish our audit of the Epstein Files Transparency Act. [1:54:47] When will it be done? [1:54:48] My goal is one year from when we announced. [1:54:51] That is a goal. [1:54:52] We're going to push for that. [1:54:53] Obviously, there's things that could pop up on occasion that slow things down, but we're going to push through that as well. [1:54:58] Our goal is to be as efficient and as accurate as possible in that audit. [1:55:02] Will you agree to engage in investigation of the retaliatory firings of agents at the FBI? [1:55:10] Again, what I will do is we'll assess whether or not there's an arena for there to take action. [1:55:15] Will you respond to that question after you review it, if you're confirmed? [1:55:20] I'm happy to talk to your office after we've reviewed and analyzed and assessed those cases. [1:55:25] And what about loyalty tests at the FBI? [1:55:29] Will you review and investigate the use of loyalty tests there? [1:55:36] Again, we'll assess all allegations and we'll run them through our process and see if there's work for us to do there. [1:55:41] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:55:44] Professor Wilson, you and I talked in the office some about, you know, normally you don't think of the archivist as being a really controversial position, [1:55:52] but there was a controversy in recent years talking about whether the archivist had the power to enroll or certify that an amendment to the Constitution had occurred, [1:56:04] particularly with the ERA. [1:56:05] The debate was over, you know, I think the enrolling document or the initiating document had a timeline. [1:56:13] Some of the states approved it outside the timeline. [1:56:16] Some of the states had taken away theirs. [1:56:18] We asked the previous archivist and she answered that she did not have the power to make that decision or to say the ERA had passed. [1:56:29] Do you agree with that opinion or just give me your opinion on that? [1:56:32] Thank you. [1:56:33] Thank you, Senator, for that question. [1:56:36] The ERA, the Equal Rights Amendment, was passed back in 1972. [1:56:41] The proposing resolution, which had a number of procedural requirements for the amendment to be considered ratified, included a deadline for ratification of seven years. [1:56:52] That deadline passed and a number of states continued to vote to ratify after the deadline. [1:57:02] A number of states rescinded their vote previously to ratify. [1:57:08] This question came before the archivist of the United States, who I imagine shares my view that the archivist, it's unfortunate that the archivist should ever be in the position to settle constitutional controversies. [1:57:21] But in this case, the archivist agreed with who was appointed, by the way, by President Biden and who's President Biden's Justice Department argued that it had not been ratified because of the deadline that had passed. [1:57:39] She agreed with that decision and said she could not certify it for legal, judicial, procedural reasons. [1:57:46] The deputy archivist, who was a career civil servant, agreed with that opinion. [1:57:55] They stated their opinions publicly. [1:57:58] I intend to, I agree with their opinion and I intend to stick with it. [1:58:06] Thank you. [1:58:07] The other issue you and I talked about is I'm interested in reading the classified annex to the Church Committee report from the 1970s. [1:58:15] It just goes to how, you know, the over-classification thing. [1:58:20] And I don't know that you'll have the power to help me, but I'd just like to hear on the record that things that are 50 years old, that the law allows you to declassify, that you will pursue declassification within the law. [1:58:31] Thank you, Senator. [1:58:33] Well, the National Archives is charged with collecting, processing, and making available to the American public, to researchers, to the government, the records of the national government. [1:58:48] Those records obviously include both classified and unclassified documents. [1:58:54] There's a process for dealing with both those kinds of documents. [1:59:01] That some documents are classified is a product of agency decisions and congressional decisions. [1:59:08] The archivist can be a nudge, I suppose, and try to get action taken to declassified documents that are wrongly classified. [1:59:18] And there are many of them I understand. [1:59:21] So I'd be happy to work with you, Senator, with your team to see if we can advance the declassification of the church documents. [1:59:29] Mr. Gallo, I commend you for your optimism that the post office can be fixed. [1:59:33] We should put that and frame that. [1:59:36] I hope you're right, but it's looked for 30 years like an unfixable problem. [1:59:42] We're going to have the postmaster general come in in the next couple of weeks. [1:59:46] And what I've asked him to present to us is if you could fix it, what will you do? [1:59:51] Because most of the things to fix it are either unpopular. [1:59:54] Everybody wants to mail at least not once a day, twice a day, if not five days, six days. [2:00:00] So everybody doesn't know he wants to give up anything, but something has to give. [2:00:04] A big part of the cost is 80 percent of the cost of delivering the mail is the labor cost. [2:00:10] In UPS, which is unionized, but it's not a government union, it's a private union, it's about 50 percent cost for labor. [2:00:18] FedEx, which is non-unionized, it's about 38 percent. [2:00:22] So that gives you an example of one of the big problems we face. [2:00:25] I think another big problem, we'll go over this with him as well, is just insourcing versus outsourcing. [2:00:31] DeJoy decided he'd add 120,000 employees. [2:00:34] Government employees cost more than private employees. [2:00:37] They're not as good because they don't have a profit incentive. [2:00:40] And so the bigger the post office gets, the more money they will lose. [2:00:43] I thought DeJoy would understand that. [2:00:45] He never understood it and got worse. [2:00:47] And the losses got worse. [2:00:48] They were losing $4 billion a year 10 years ago. [2:00:50] Now we're losing $9 billion a year. [2:00:52] So you're welcome to comment that. [2:00:55] I'll have a specific question. [2:00:57] But if you have ideas for it, we would love to hear your ideas on how we're going to fix the post office. [2:01:02] As a businessman, it's hard for me to understand how you, that the Postal Service has $80 billion in revenue, [2:01:12] has the network to deliver mail directly to households all over this country and business entities, [2:01:21] has the ability to borrow up to $15 billion and you're losing money. [2:01:26] It's crazy. [2:01:27] And why I think it's fixable is because you're losing $10 billion. [2:01:32] You have to raise the revenue by $5 billion and you have to reduce your cost by $5 billion. [2:01:38] That all has to be looked at. [2:01:41] You have the Delivery for America program that was established in March of 2021. [2:01:48] And I read it and many of the points that they made made sense to me. [2:01:54] But you're six years into this program. [2:01:56] You're supposed to have reduced the, make it a break even over a 10 year period. [2:02:02] You're six years into it and you're still losing the same amount of money. [2:02:06] So obviously all of those points that were made in the Delivery for America program has to be looked at. [2:02:12] What's working? [2:02:13] What's not working? [2:02:14] And from there you have to really dive into why it's not working and change it. [2:02:20] And obviously the workforce at over 600,000 people is too high. [2:02:27] And you need to figure out who's performing. [2:02:32] Who's coming to work and who's not. [2:02:36] Who's getting paid and not coming to work. [2:02:38] All of this has to be looked at. [2:02:40] And that's why I think it's fixable. [2:02:42] All I would say is be bold. [2:02:44] Trimming around the corners isn't going to do it. [2:02:46] So be bold and we have to have, you know, we have to try to fix it. [2:02:49] We have to try to do something better. [2:02:51] Senator Slotkin. [2:02:53] Thank you, Chairman. [2:02:55] Welcome to the panel, everyone. [2:02:57] And for those who are seeking to be on the Board of Governors for the Postal Service, [2:03:03] you've heard bipartisan interest in getting this right. [2:03:06] And the importance that so many of us who live in rural places have on the Postal Service [2:03:13] and wanting it to be successful. [2:03:16] The questions I have are related to some things that the President has said about mail-in voting [2:03:24] and the role of the Postal Service. [2:03:27] Just this month, the President has put out rules, tried to put out rules following an executive order [2:03:33] where he's trying to frankly prevent mail-in voting. [2:03:36] But he's trying to say that the U.S. Postal Service should have a role in deciding who gets to vote by mail. [2:03:42] He's said over and over that he thinks mail-in voting isn't safe, even though there are states where the entire state votes by mail. [2:03:51] And I just want to ask, do you believe that the U.S. Postal Service has a role in adjudicating who gets to vote in this country? [2:04:01] Mr. Brodsky, do you want to start? [2:04:03] Yeah. [2:04:04] I think the Postal Service needs to receive the ballots and deliver them as quickly as possible. [2:04:08] Should I have to get your approval as Board of Governor members to vote in my own state? [2:04:13] We will follow the law. And as far as I know, that's not yet the law. [2:04:19] And I understand that there was a proposal made, and I assume that that will be clarified. [2:04:25] And we'll do whatever is required under the law. [2:04:28] Mr. Gallo? [2:04:30] I read the executive order by President Trump and created a lot of legal disputes and public debate. [2:04:45] As far as I'm concerned, you have to have the courts and Congress make the decision. [2:04:54] Do you believe that mail-in voting now is safe and secure? [2:04:57] That's a very good question. I would say it's not mail-in under the proper guidance and monitoring. Yes, I do think. [2:05:14] I mean, for instance, President Trump won my state in 2024, and there was a ton of mail-in voting. [2:05:22] Was that voting for President Trump safe and secure or no? [2:05:25] It was safe and secure. [2:05:29] Okay. Have you ever voted by mail? [2:05:33] Never. [2:05:34] Mr. Brodsky, have you voted by mail? [2:05:36] Yes, I have. [2:05:37] Okay. And presumably you feel the system was safe and secure? [2:05:39] It was a wonderful way to vote, and I did it three times. [2:05:42] Okay. Great. Love to hear that. [2:05:44] I think the president has just made very clear, including in the State of the Union, where we were all in the room, [2:05:49] that if his side doesn't win in November, then the election was rigged, and he's using every which way he can to figure out how to swing the election his way. [2:05:58] The latest round is to say that you all will have to approve who gets to vote, and I have a fundamental problem with that, [2:06:04] and hope that you push back in the spirit of democracy. [2:06:07] Turning to our Department of Justice nominee here. [2:06:13] You know, I'm interested in the fact that you're up for the Inspector General, which is the watchdog of the Department of Justice. [2:06:22] And you have been serving in the office as a senior advisor or in some capacity for the past year and a half. Is that right? [2:06:32] Only since October. [2:06:33] Only since October. [2:06:34] Okay. So you've seen there. [2:06:37] I was investigated by the Department of Justice for a 90-second video that I produced with Senator Kelly and four others. [2:06:45] It went to a grand jury where they tried to criminally indict me for 90-second video that quoted the Uniform Code of Military Justice, [2:06:53] and a grand jury unanimously said, no, that was ridiculous. [2:06:57] This is on top of the Department of Justice going after and failing to prosecute Leticia James, Lisa Cook, James Comey, Mark Kelly and myself, a bunch of others. [2:07:10] You are technically barred. [2:07:12] You have passed the bar in New York and D.C. where there is a ban on frivolous lawsuits. [2:07:19] Have you received any information in the capacity that you've been serving in of either waste, fraud and abuse for these repeated and failed lawsuits or any complaint of any kind for the weaponization of the Department of Justice against people like myself? [2:07:34] Sure. It's a fair question. [2:07:35] We do not have jurisdiction over the conduct of attorneys at the Department of Justice. [2:07:40] That actually belongs to DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility. [2:07:44] That's a carve out in the law that says any decisions a DOJ attorney makes in the course of acting as an attorney for the department falls under their jurisdiction. [2:07:53] That's not something that would come to us. [2:07:55] I mean, I guess the question is, do you believe that, you know, going after the president's opponents and filing failed lawsuit after failed lawsuit after failed lawsuit qualifies for waste, fraud and abuse of taxpayer dollars in general? [2:08:13] You'd be disbarred for doing it or would be under investigation if you were a practicing attorney in New York or D.C. for over and over and over again launching failed lawsuits that fail in front of a grand jury unanimously, which I understand is hard to do. [2:08:27] Do you believe that repeated and consistent failed lawsuits by the Department of Justice is something that qualifies in your capacity as waste, fraud and abuse? [2:08:39] So again, those are very fact specific questions. [2:08:42] And again, we do not analyze decisions that are made by Department of Justice attorneys just doesn't come into our bailiwick. [2:08:49] We also do not have authority to review or assess rather how the department makes its policy decisions on how it chooses cases that not within the act. [2:09:02] So if someone came to you with a complaint claiming waste, fraud and abuse or weaponization, you wouldn't be able to hear that complaint. [2:09:09] You would choose not to hear and deal with those complaints. [2:09:11] Not that we would not choose to do it. [2:09:12] It just wouldn't fall within our jurisdiction. [2:09:14] That would go to OPR. [2:09:15] I see. [2:09:16] So what do you do and what do you believe the job description is for the job that you are applying for? [2:09:22] We look at fraud, waste and abuse in the department's operations. [2:09:26] All right. [2:09:27] So it would be things like how are contracts handled by the department. [2:09:30] We also go look at how the Bureau of Prisons, OK, is affecting is doing its job to ensure that it's doing better. [2:09:37] ATF, DEA, FBI. [2:09:39] We look at the way the department operates in its functionality. [2:09:43] So if there's misconduct, let's say, related to the way any of those agencies are acting. [2:09:48] For example, when we did the FISA abuse case, we were looking at how the FBI executed its FISA authorities. [2:09:55] Because of that specific carve out with attorneys, it limits us, limits our ability to look at the way the department is exercising its prosecutorial functions. [2:10:04] Yeah, I just I it seems hard to believe that someone who's asking to be or seeking nomination and confirmation to be the inspector general of the Department of Justice has seemingly no role in accountability on how the time and money is spent in weaponized prosecutions of American citizens. [2:10:24] And I certainly think predecessors of yours would maybe have a different definition of the job. [2:10:30] Senator Gallego. [2:10:35] Thank you, Mr. Chair. [2:10:36] Mr. Allen, in the 1990s, you found a conservative campus publication called the Carolina Review. [2:10:41] If you look behind me, you'll see the front cover of an edition of the Carolina Review depicting Aaron Nelson, a Jewish candidate for student body president. [2:10:48] Your magazine altered Nelson's photo depicting him with the horns and a pitchfork. [2:10:53] Inside the article says the difference between Aaron Nelson is simple. [2:10:57] He's Jewish. [2:11:00] Yes or no, Mr. Nelson, do you stand by this depiction? [2:11:07] Turn your mic on. [2:11:12] Sorry, I'm Mr. Allen, not Mr. Nelson. [2:11:16] But in terms of that cover, you know, I would if I were 30 years ago advocating for the review, I would say don't run that cover. [2:11:31] I think it was a mistake. [2:11:34] That said, if you look at full context of the article, you're taking a quote out of context. [2:11:40] Okay. [2:11:41] So I may take a quote out of context, but that's not being taken out of context, right? [2:11:44] The pitchfork with the horns? [2:11:45] Right. [2:11:46] Because that's kind of hard to get out of context. [2:11:48] In terms of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, our chief rival was the Blue Devils. [2:11:54] Still are the Blue Devils. [2:11:56] And the cartoonist intention was to make an analogy to that. [2:12:01] So everything happened was just a total coincidence that the Jewish candidate happened to have a pitchfork and horns. [2:12:11] And that also at the same time, inside the context of the difference with Nelson is simple. [2:12:15] He's Jewish. [2:12:16] And the difference being between them and the Blue Devils. [2:12:20] So the difference is that he is a Jewish versus a Blue Devil. [2:12:24] Is that what your defense is? [2:12:26] No, sir. [2:12:27] The point is this. [2:12:28] Mr. Nelson voted not to fund a Christian group. [2:12:32] He voted to fund the Jewish group. [2:12:35] He voted to fund the pagan group. [2:12:37] But on two separate times, he voted not to fund InterVarsity Christian Fellowship. [2:12:41] And it raises a conflict of interest when he was a member of a group that he voted for. [2:12:47] You certainly remember in detail this incident in question for someone who wants to forget it. [2:12:53] So do you stand by the statement that was made of that time period regarding Mr. Nelson then? [2:12:58] What statement are you referring to? [2:13:00] Well, I would say overall this anti-Semitic statement and depiction of this gentleman. [2:13:04] I would not say that it's anti-Semitic. [2:13:07] We were the group that was calling for the equal treatment of all student religions. [2:13:13] So it's not anti-Semitic to say the difference with Nelson is simple. [2:13:17] He's Jewish. [2:13:18] The difference between a Blue Devil and Nelson is the fact that he's Jewish. [2:13:23] That's... [2:13:24] You stand by that then? [2:13:25] The point was this. [2:13:26] He voted for the Jewish group. [2:13:28] And on two separate occasions, he voted not to fund the Christian group. [2:13:32] We said the Jewish group was entitled to be funded. [2:13:35] And I stand by that. [2:13:36] I have been... [2:13:37] What's your official... [2:13:38] What's your official... [2:13:39] What's your official title you're going for? [2:13:41] Pardon? [2:13:42] What is the official title here that you are interviewing for? [2:13:46] The official title for... [2:13:47] What's the official title what you're interviewing here? [2:13:48] What are you here answering questions for? [2:13:51] You're here to be the Federal Labor Relations Authority, right? [2:13:55] General Counsel. [2:13:56] Is that correct? [2:13:57] Correct. [2:13:58] What is the official title of your job as General Counsel for the Fair Labor's Authority? [2:14:03] That's spelled out in Title 5, Chapter 71, 7104D. [2:14:10] The General Counsel is to investigate potential unfair labor practices [2:14:15] and make a determination whether a ULP has occurred [2:14:18] and then prosecute that before the authority if there is a prima facie case. [2:14:24] Gotcha. [2:14:25] So after hearing this and seeing this, [2:14:27] why would I trust that you're going to be able to take care of our Jewish community? [2:14:30] Because there seems to have been something that happened 30 years ago, [2:14:34] if that's the right time period, [2:14:36] that certainly made you justify being able to do this to a private citizen, [2:14:41] even though you were a private citizen then. [2:14:43] Senator, in all due respect, I would encourage you to look at my record [2:14:46] as a judicial official, the chief judicial officer, [2:14:49] and chief executive officer of the North Carolina Industrial Commission, [2:14:53] where at all times I treated all parties before me with fairness, dignity, and respect, [2:15:00] without regard to any personal characteristics. [2:15:02] Okay. Now, Mr. Allen, just one more time. [2:15:04] To explain to me, the quote is, [2:15:07] the difference with Nelson is simple. He's Jewish. [2:15:10] What was exactly trying to be communicated there? [2:15:12] Because I think that seems to be fairly blatant anti-Semitic. [2:15:15] I don't agree that it is anti-Semitic. [2:15:19] It was a quote that you're taking out of context about his voting record, [2:15:24] where he voted not to treat the Christian group with the same respect as his own group. [2:15:29] I yield back. [2:15:30] We're getting close to the end. [2:15:35] I'm going to ask another question or so, [2:15:37] and then I think Senator Peters has another question or two, [2:15:39] and then I think we'll be finished up. [2:15:41] Mr. Berthium, my office has asked the DOJ IG to investigate some of the confidential human resources [2:15:52] with regard to COVID origins, crossfire, hurricane, quiet skies, [2:15:58] some of these people that were paid by the FBI. [2:16:00] What's come to light is that, you know, we pay experts for their opinion sometimes, [2:16:06] but if we're paying experts that were actually involved with the action, [2:16:11] then maybe we're not paying the right people, but we need to know who is paid and how much. [2:16:15] The IG is investigating that. [2:16:18] We'd like to ask whether it's going to, you know, that we will have a completion of that [2:16:23] and that we will get that information, you know, with now the CIA, the DOE, [2:16:29] and the FBI all concluding that the virus originated in a lab in Wuhan. [2:16:33] We really wouldn't want our experts to be people who actually were receiving money with [2:16:38] and working with the lab in Wuhan. [2:16:40] And so these are important things, I think, for a conflict of interest [2:16:44] and just for the historical record so this doesn't happen again. [2:16:47] Will you commit to complete those investigations that we've asked for? [2:16:51] Yes, sir. And I believe we're working with your staff on that as well. [2:16:54] Thank you. Senator Peters. [2:16:57] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [2:17:00] Mr. Rarathum, President Trump violated the Inspector General Act [2:17:05] when he fired 19 Inspector General, the most recent just about a week ago, [2:17:11] without submitting to Congress the required 30-day notification with a substantive rationale. [2:17:17] So my question for you, sir, is yes or no. [2:17:19] Do you acknowledge that President Trump violated the requirements of the IG Act? [2:17:23] Yeah, I believe a court recently came to that same conclusion. [2:17:26] Storch v. Hegseth determined that the President violated the IG Act [2:17:31] but also held that there was no irreparable harm to the IGs by him doing so. [2:17:36] But you agree that he violated the Act? [2:17:38] Yeah, I agree with the court's decision on that one. [2:17:41] Okay. Mr. Gallo and Brodsky, the Postal Regulatory Commission, as you know, [2:17:47] is an independent body that provides oversight to the USPS [2:17:53] and ensures that their product pricing complies with the law. [2:17:58] Earlier this year, though, the Postal Service petitioned the PRC [2:18:02] to change its regulations and to grant the Board of Governors [2:18:06] the authority to unilaterally set postal pricing for a five-year period. [2:18:11] The petition, I know, is pending right now. [2:18:13] But I'm sure you're both aware of that because it's been a pretty big issue. [2:18:17] So my question for both of you is, if confirmed, [2:18:19] do you commit to support and maintain the mission of the Postal Regulatory Commission [2:18:24] to provide independent regulation and oversight over the Postal Service [2:18:28] to ensure that they don't abuse their monopoly on market-dominant mail? [2:18:34] Absolutely. I have great regard for what work they're doing. [2:18:38] I was very impressed by them. [2:18:40] And I think that we have to work with them cooperatively. [2:18:42] They have a great team there. [2:18:44] And a lot could be done to help fix what we've got here. [2:18:47] Thank you. [2:18:49] Mr. Gallum? [2:18:50] I agree. [2:18:51] We need to work very closely with the PRC. [2:18:53] I have no issue with it at all. [2:18:55] Right. [2:18:56] So both of you will support their mission. [2:18:57] I appreciate that. [2:18:58] Thank you. [2:18:59] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [2:19:00] Thank you all for appearing today and for your answers. [2:19:05] The nominees of both panels have filed responses to biographical and financial questionnaires, [2:19:10] answered pre-hearing questions submitted by the committee, [2:19:12] and had their financial statements reviewed by the Office of Government Ethics. [2:19:16] Additionally, the committee has received letters of support for the nominees. [2:19:19] Without objection, this information will be made part of the hearing record, [2:19:23] with the exception of the nominees' financial data, which are on file with the committee. [2:19:27] The hearing record will remain open until 5 p.m. on Friday, June 19th. [2:19:31] The hearing is adjourned.