U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

88–269 PDF 2014

S. Hrg. 113–436 

NOMINATION OF JOHN R. ROTH 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

NOMINATION OF JOHN R. ROTH, TO BE INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

JANUARY 8, 2014 

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

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

( 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

RICHARD J. KESSLER, Staff Director 

JOHN P. KILVINGTON, Deputy Staff Director 

MARY BETH SCHULTZ, Chief Counsel for Homeland Security 

HOLLY A. IDELSON, Senior Counsel 

DEIRDRE G. ARMSTRONG, Professional Staff Member 

KEITH B. ASHDOWN, Minority Staff Director 

CHRISTOPHER J. BARKLEY, Minority Deputy Staff Director 

ANDREW C. DOCKHAM, Minority Chief Counsel 

DANIEL P. LIPS, Minority Director of Homeland Security 

SARAH BETH GROSHART, Minority Counsel 

JORDAN E. KAYE, Minority Investigator 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Chief Clerk 

LAUREN M. CORCORAN, Hearing Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 1 

Senator Coburn ................................................................................................. 3 

Senator Tester .................................................................................................. 3 

Senator Enzi ..................................................................................................... 14 

Senator Johnson ............................................................................................... 15 

Senator McCain ................................................................................................ 18 

Senator Ayotte .................................................................................................. 20 

Senator McCaskill ............................................................................................ 22 

Prepared statements: 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 33 

Senator Coburn ................................................................................................. 35 

WITNESSES 

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 8, 2014 

Hon. John R. Roth, Nominated to be Inspector General, U.S. Department 

of Homeland Security 

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

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 36 

Biographical and financial information .......................................................... 39 

Letter from the Office of Government Ethics ................................................. 61 

Responses to pre-hearing questions ................................................................ 63 

Responses to post-hearing questions .............................................................. 87 

Letters of Support ............................................................................................. 91 

(1) 

NOMINATION OF JOHN R. ROTH 

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 8, 2014 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Thomas R. Carper, 

presiding. 

Present: Senators Carper, McCaskill, Tester, Coburn, McCain, 

Johnson, Enzi, and Ayotte. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN CARPER 

Chairman CARPER. The hearing will come to order. 

Mr. Roth, we welcome you and your family today, and our colleagues, as well, and our other guests. 

During my years of service on this Committee—I have been on 

this Committee for about—this is starting the 14th year—we have 

examined a number of management and other challenges made 

worse by the lack of leadership at Federal agencies. Last year, my 

first as the Committee’s Chairman, I made it one of my top priorities to work with the Administration to fill key positions throughout the government, particularly at the Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS), and I did this because experience shows that we 

simply cannot expect results from any organization—any organization, Federal agencies included—without strong leaders in place. 

So, as we begin a new year, I am very happy that DHS once 

again has a Senate-confirmed Secretary and Deputy Secretary in 

place. Today, we continue the progress we have made in filling vacancies at the Department, considering the nomination of John 

Roth to be Inspector General (IG). 

The DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) has been without a 

permanent leader, a Senate-confirmed leader, for nearly 3 years, 

and that is inexcusable for an office that is so vital to the work of 

the Department and to the Congress. Inspectors General are an essential component of government oversight. They can help reveal 

and prosecute wrongdoing, provide invaluable support to Congressional budgeting and oversight work, and promote the integrity and 

efficiency of our government. 

This Committee builds on the work of the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General, as well as with the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB), to help the Department of Homeland Security 

more effectively and efficiently achieve its critically important mis-
2 

1Letters of support appear in the Appendix on page 91. 

sions, and we need to strengthen management and accountability 

to work better to unify the Department and continue on our quest 

to get better results for less money. There is only so much this 

Committee, the Government Accountability Office, OMB, or the Office of Inspector General can do alone, but if we all work together, 

we can help the Department make real progress on its key challenges, and there are plenty of them. 

I know the Office of Inspector General is not always seen as an 

ally by management, but good leaders should welcome constructive 

criticisms to help improve performance. That is particularly true 

for the Department of Homeland Security, which faces a vital and 

extremely challenging mission and is still coming of age as a Department. 

The Department’s OIG itself is also in need of leadership and a 

fresh start after a turbulent period of time that has raised questions about the integrity of the office’s work and has undoubtedly 

shaken morale within the office. Indeed, a recent survey of government employees conducted by the Partnership for Public Service 

showed employee satisfaction with the Department’s Office of Inspector General falling off markedly in 2013 after a relatively solid 

showing in prior years. 

So, the role of Inspector General at DHS is a challenging and important job and I am pleased to see a strong nominee before us 

today. 

Mr. Roth grew up in the Detroit area and was educated there, 

including putting himself through college at Wayne State University, where he also attended law school. He spent most of his career 

at the Department of Justice (DOJ), where he was a seasoned prosecutor. Early on, he was an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Detroit, 

then Chief of the Narcotics Section in Miami. In 1999, he moved 

to Justice Department headquarters here in Washington, DC, and 

has held a succession of significant jobs, including Chief of the 

Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section, Chief of the Fraud 

and Public Corruption Section, and Chief of Staff to the Deputy Attorney General. 

One of his few departures from the Justice Department was 

shortly after September 11, 2001, when he was detailed to the 

9/11 Commission and was the Senior Counsel and team leader of 

the Commission’s Team on Terrorist Financing. Since July 2012, he 

has led the Criminal Investigation Office of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), where he oversees a staff of close to 300 people. 

Along the way, he has earned the respect of an impressive array 

of employees and colleagues, including former DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff, former Congressman and 9/11 Commissioner Lee 

Hamilton, Alice Fisher, the former Assistant Attorney General for 

the Criminal Division, and many others. These and other individuals have written the Committee in support of this nomination. I 

will place their letters1 in the record, without objection. 

These former colleagues praise Mr. Roth’s intellect and work 

ethic, but also, maybe more importantly, his integrity. Inspectors 

General sit in a difficult and, at times, conflicting roles. To be effec-
3 

tive, it is critical that an IG’s independence and integrity be beyond 

reproach. Based on these testimonials and more, I believe that Mr. 

Roth has met and will continue to meet this high standard. 

During my meeting with Mr. Roth last month, I enjoyed learning 

about the nominee’s background, growing up in the Detroit area— 

hanging out at the corner of Michigan and Trumball Avenue, 

where the Detroit Tigers used to play—his impressive career, and 

his commitment to public service, and I look forward to hearing 

more from him today on his experience and his ideas on how to improve the Office of Inspector General, and with it, the Department 

of Homeland Security. 

I want to thank Dr. Coburn, his staff and our staff, everyone on 

our Committee, for their help in expediting the consideration of 

this nomination. Now, I would defer to Dr. Coburn. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COBURN 

Senator COBURN. Well, welcome to you and your family. First is 

a thank you for being willing to serve. Second is a recognition of 

the President’s confidence and also judgment in nominating you for 

this position. 

A lot of Americans do not understand how important for their 

freedom Inspectors General are. You are the eyes and ears for the 

American people to be sure that the agencies are actually complying with the law, and you come well equipped to fulfill that obligation. You have the management skills as well as the confidence 

of, I think, both the Chairman and I. I have enjoyed our visits and 

the insight into both your background and your management style 

and I certainly look forward to supporting you. 

There are a great deal of difficulties, not just within the IG’s Office, but also across Homeland Security, and I will not go into the 

details of those now, but given the troubles at the IG Office, it is 

important to say in a public hearing that the vast majority of people who work in that office are stellar Federal employees and 

should not be tainted by any of the things that have gone on and 

questions have been raised about over the past several months. 

There are a lot of outstanding issues in the IG in terms of open 

cases, significantly too many, as well as an open case that is precarious and will have a great effect on Deputy Secretary Alejandro 

Mayorkas as well as the reputation of the IG’s Office. 

I welcome you to our hearing. I look forward to your statement. 

And I look forward to supporting you, not only in your nomination 

and vote on the Senate floor, but in supporting you as you go about 

doing the very important work that you have agreed to take on. 

I yield back. 

Chairman CARPER. Thanks, Dr. Coburn. 

Senator Tester, do you want to say anything? 

Senator TESTER. No—— 

Chairman CARPER. Senator Enzi, do you have any comment? 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TESTER 

Senator TESTER. I will be very quick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman 

and Ranking Member Coburn. 
4 

I would just say this, first of all. Welcome. I appreciate our opportunity to visit. As has been said earlier, I think you are ultimately qualified to do this job and do it very well. 

This is going to be a challenging position, as we talked yesterday. 

The IG’s Office in DHS is—well, let us just say it needs some leadership, and the fact that we have gone as long as we have without 

a Senate-confirmed leader is a travesty. That being said, hopefully, 

you will be out of this Committee soon and off the Senate floor 

soon, confirmed in this position, because I think you have an incredible skill set for this job and DHS’s gain will be FDA’s loss. 

So, I just want to thank you for being willing to serve. I appreciate your excellent credentials and I look forward to having a 

qualified individual in the IG’s Office of the Department of Homeland Security. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CARPER. You bet. 

I, again, want to welcome our witness, John Roth, today. In fact, 

I think we have two John Roths in the audience today, one at the 

table and one covering his back right behind him, his son John, 

who is 14, and I think Michael is back there, but Michael is, I 

think, 12. When my boys were 12 and 14, you could not have paid 

them to come to a hearing like this—— [Laughter.] 

So it is a great testimony by their presence to their dedication 

and affection for their dad and we thank them for being here, for 

joining us. 

And Monique, your bride of how many years, 20? 

Mr. ROTH. Close to that. It is—— 

Chairman CARPER. I do not mean to put you on the spot. [Laughter.] 

Mr. ROTH. Sixteen years. 

Chairman CARPER. The best answer I have ever heard when I 

asked somebody how long they had been married, John, was this 

woman at the General Motors plant in Delaware. I said, how long 

have you and your husband been married? He was an engineer and 

she was a supervisor. And she said, ‘‘Thirteen years. Not long 

enough.’’ And I thought, boy, I can learn from her. So, 16 years, 

not long enough. I would congratulate you for that. 

And, Monique, I just want to say, thank you for sharing your 

husband, and to your sons, for sharing your dad with our country 

for all these years, and your willingness to let him try this job on 

for size if we can get him confirmed. I know it is a heavy lift, but 

we will do our very best. 

As I mentioned in my opening statement, Mr. Roth has served 

in a variety of roles over more than 20 years at the Department 

of Justice. He has also worked in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the 

District of Columbia as Chief of the Fraud and Public Corruption 

Section and Executive Assistant, U.S. Attorney for Operations. Mr. 

Roth served as Special Counsel and team leader for the Terrorist 

Financing Team of the 9/11 Commission. Our nominee currently 

works as the Director of the Office of Criminal Investigations at 

the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 

Mr. Roth, before you proceed with your statement this morning, 

Committee rules require that all witnesses at nomination hearings 
5 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Roth appears in the Appendix on page 36. 

give their testimony under oath, and I am going to ask you if you 

would stand and please raise your right hand. 

John Roth, do you swear that the testimony you will give before 

this Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 

the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. ROTH. I do. 

Chairman CARPER. You may be seated. 

You are welcome to proceed. Sometimes, we ask witnesses to 

limit their statements to 5 minutes. Feel free to go beyond that, 

and if you would like to introduce your family again and any other 

guests that are here today, please feel free. Please proceed. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN R. ROTH,1 NOMINATED TO BE INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. ROTH. Thank you, Chairman Carper, Ranking Member 

Coburn, and Members of this Committee. It is an honor to be considered by this Committee as the President’s nominee for Inspector 

General for the Department of Homeland Security. 

I would like to recognize and thank my very supportive family. 

As you mentioned, my wife, Monique, is here, as well as my two 

sons, John and Michael. I have learned more about integrity and 

leadership from my family and from raising my children than I 

could have possibly imagined before I began that journey. They 

have kept me grounded and they serve as important reminders of 

the importance of what we do here today. 

I would also like to take this time to acknowledge the contribution of my parents, Richard and Corinne Roth, who have been married to each other for over 60 years. They could not make the trip 

from Colorado to be here today, but I know that they are watching, 

and I am grateful for the qualities that they have instilled in me— 

honesty, perseverance, and a strong work ethic. 

I would also like to thank the Members of the Committee and 

their staff for taking the time to meet with me. I found that very 

productive, and if confirmed, I look forward to continuing this dialogue. 

I am under no illusions about the challenges that the next Inspector General will face. Ten years after its creation, DHS is still 

finding its way. I have reviewed the GAO reports, the DHS Inspector General reports, and the congressional hearings, including 

hearings of this Committee, that lay out many of the issues that 

need to be addressed. 

If confirmed, I welcome that challenge. I have a quarter-century 

of experience as a prosecutor and a manager at the Department of 

Justice and as the leader of FDA’s criminal enforcement efforts. 

This has given me an analytical mind, a nose for facts, and a judgment tempered by years of experience to be able to draw solid conclusions from those facts. 

I also have what I think is unique experience in examining and 

assessing government programs. I led the team on the 9/11 Commission looking into the government’s preparedness in response to 

the 9/11 attacks as it relates to terrorist financing. In the end, our 

team produced a specialized analytical report. That report was uni-
6 

versally acclaimed for its accuracy, its conciseness, and its utility 

by several Committees of Congress, by the Administration at the 

time, and by members of the public and outside experts. 

Moreover, I have experience and insight into financial audits 

that every Inspector General’s Office conducts. Both at the FDA 

and at DOJ, we employed auditors and forensic accountants to help 

us unravel significantly complex financial schemes. 

I have long involvement with the Inspectors General community, 

as well. As Chief of the Fraud and Public Corruption Section in the 

U.S. Attorney’s Office just blocks from here, our office was ‘‘IG Central.’’ We had active investigations with an entire range of Inspector General Offices, including those at State, Labor, Interior, Justice, Education, Homeland Security, United States Agency for 

International Development, Defense, Transportation, Health and 

Human Services (HHS), Housing and Urban Development, General 

Services Administration, and a host of others. The matters we investigated included program fraud involving millions of dollars and 

corruption and ethical lapses by individuals within those agencies, 

including agency heads. In my current position at the FDA, we conduct numerous joint investigations with our partners at the HHS 

Inspector General’s Office. Finally, as part of the senior management team in a number of roles at the Department of Justice, I had 

the opportunity to observe firsthand a very well-respected and effective Inspector General’s Office. 

Each of these positions has given me insight into effective management and leadership. I have faced a variety of leadership challenges in which I was called on to turn an organization around. 

Each time, I was able to create a cohesive, high-functioning team 

focused at the mission on hand. 

As you note, the Office of Inspector General has endured a tough 

couple of years. I have read the media reports and the publicly 

available correspondence regarding the issues surrounding the office. I want the men and women who work in that office to be 

proud of where they work. 

If I am confirmed, I will work to ensure that the Office of Inspector General is viewed as the independent, credible voice that it was 

designed to be. 

If I am confirmed, I will work to ensure that the employees within that organization are empowered to succeed and will focus on 

things that matter. 

If confirmed, I will listen to those inside and outside the organization for working to make the office better so we can make the 

government more effective, more efficient, and more responsive to 

the American taxpayer. 

If confirmed, I will ensure that it becomes a more transparent 

place, a better place to work, and one that provides real value to 

the DHS mission. 

And, finally, and most importantly, and which I will never compromise, I will ensure that we are objective and independent in everything that we do. 

That concludes my statement. I am happy to answer any questions the Committee may have. 

Chairman CARPER. Great. Thank you for an excellent statement. 
7 

Let us just start off by going back in time, looking back before 

we look forward. You mentioned in your testimony some of the values that you learned from your parents. I think you mentioned 

three of those, integrity, perseverance, and work ethic. Talk to us 

about how you learned those values from your mom and dad and 

how they pertain to the job that you are now being considered for. 

Mr. ROTH. Certainly, and that was one of the fundamental lessons that I learned from my parents. I am the last of five children 

and I would be remiss if I did not mention—— 

Chairman CARPER. Before you answer, I need to ask you three 

pro forma questions and then we will go back to the question I just 

asked you. 

Is there anything you are aware of in your background that 

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

which you have been nominated? 

Mr. ROTH. No. 

Chairman CARPER. OK. Do you know of anything personal or 

otherwise that would in any way prevent you from fully and honorably discharging the responsibilities of the office to which you have 

been nominated? 

Mr. ROTH. No, sir. 

Chairman CARPER. OK. And, do you agree without reservation to 

respond to any reasonable summons to appear and testify before 

duly constituted Committees of Congress if you are confirmed? 

Mr. ROTH. Yes. 

Chairman CARPER. Thank you. All right. Let us go back to the 

question I asked—integrity, perseverance, work ethic. 

Mr. ROTH. Sure. I am the last of five children and I would be remiss not to mention my brothers and my sister, Tom, Tim, Michael, 

and Mary Kathryn. We were all instilled with a very hard work 

ethic—except for my sister, we all caddied in a local golf club starting at the age of 14, and hard work was important. Working hard 

at school, but working hard outside of school was very important. 

And those kinds of qualities extended beyond. As a trial lawyer—— 

Chairman CARPER. Where did you go to, Wayne State, undergrad 

and law school? 

Mr. ROTH. Yes, I did. 

Chairman CARPER. Did you help pay your way through school? 

Mr. ROTH. Yes, I did. 

Chairman CARPER. How did you do that? 

Mr. ROTH. In undergrad, I did a variety of jobs. The most prominent one was I worked in the library, not as a librarian or anything 

academic but more unloading boxes of books from the loading dock, 

as well as working at the university book store, a variety of odd 

jobs. I was fortunate enough that Wayne State was able to give me 

a scholarship for law school, so that was the way I was able to 

make that work. 

Chairman CARPER. OK. Good. 

Mr. ROTH. But, as I was indicating, hard work was important, 

and as a trial lawyer in the Department of Justice, I got by not by 

good looks or being flashy in the courtroom, but by doing the hard 

work and the necessary investigation and beating the streets and 

making sure that I had my evidence in order to be able to make 

the case. And, again, it is hard work, sweating the details, getting 
8 

it right. Those are the kinds of values that my parents have instilled in me. 

Chairman CARPER. Relate those values, if you will, to the job 

that lies ahead. 

Mr. ROTH. Certainly. I mean, I think it is important for an Inspector General to pay attention to details, to work hard, to ensure 

that his staff works hard, to produce reports that are timely, that 

are accurate, and that are helpful both to the Committee and to the 

Administration. 

Chairman CARPER. All right. You had a lot of jobs, and one more 

question I would ask you is why have you had so many different 

jobs? 

Mr. ROTH. Yes. I like to say that I worked for the Department 

of Justice for 25 years, and each one of the times that I have 

moved, it was as a result of a promotion or gaining more responsibility, making a better contribution to the goals of the Department 

of Justice. So, when an Alice Fisher, for example, asks you to come 

and serve for her during a time of great chaos, for example—I 

would not say chaos, but a time of great uncertainty in the change 

of Administration, likewise, when the Deputy Attorney General 

asks you to be his Chief of Staff, a career Chief of Staff in what 

is normally a political position because of the changes that were 

going on and the uncertainty, it is hard, certainly, to say no to 

that. 

Chairman CARPER. And you had a short stint—well, a 2-year 

stint, I think—over in Paris. 

Mr. ROTH. That is true. 

Chairman CARPER. Tough assignment. How did you end up over 

there? 

Mr. ROTH. Two-and-a-half years. My wife was the Justice Department Attache in Paris. Her father is a Foreign Service Officer 

(FSO) and she grew up in Europe and we wanted to give the same 

kinds of experience that she received to our children. So, we were 

fortunate enough to be able to get two jobs over in Paris to be able 

to do that. 

Chairman CARPER. That is pretty good duty. 

Mr. ROTH. It is good to marry well, Senator. [Laughter.] 

Chairman CARPER. Let us talk about maybe the first 30 days, 

first 60 days, first 90 days if you are confirmed. And Dr. Coburn 

said to me just before we were getting into the Q and A that he 

thought maybe this is a nomination we could mark up off the floor, 

and that would be great if we could do that even this week. That 

would be great. But, just talk about the next 30, 60 days after you 

are confirmed, if you are confirmed, hopefully. 

Mr. ROTH. Certainly. It has been my experience that when you 

go into any job, you need to do some diagnostics. You need to understand what the situation is before you can make any significant 

changes. And I think a good leader needs to listen. He needs to listen to the people who work for him. He needs to listen to his management team. And he needs to listen to stakeholders, both within 

DHS and outside of DHS, to understand exactly what the situation 

is. 

So, I intend, if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed, to spend 

that first—and I do not know how long it will take because some 
9 

of it will simply depend on what it is that I find—that first period 

of time doing some analysis and understanding exactly what the 

situation is. 

Now, there are certain issues, of course, that will just come up 

immediately and we will simply have to deal with those as I find 

them. 

Chairman CARPER. In looking at your background, one of the 

folks you worked for along the way was former Congressman Lee 

Hamilton—— 

Mr. ROTH. Yes. 

Chairman CARPER [continuing]. Who was, I think, Co-Chair of 

the 9/11 Commission. He was, believe it, one of my mentors in the 

U.S. House of Representatives where I served, and Dr. Coburn and 

some others on this Committee served. Talk to us about the mentors that you would look to to help guide you and help you prepare 

for these new responsibilities—maybe you have already met with, 

talked with, and who you expect to look to for guidance and counsel 

in the days ahead. 

Mr. ROTH. Yes. Certainly, one of the things that I have done is 

in the job that I have had in the Justice Department, I have been 

able to be fortunate enough to meet with a number of Inspectors 

General in preparation for this hearing and hopeful confirmation. 

I have met with a number of them. Michael Horowitz, for example, 

at the Department of Justice is somebody I worked for when I was 

in the Criminal Division, and there are a number of others that I 

have met with, including Rick Skinner, the former Inspector General in the Department of Homeland Security, who I knew, again, 

when I was at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in D.C. and we worked 

together. So, there are a number of people and a reservoir of expertise that I can draw on to move forward on this. 

Chairman CARPER. I will ask this last related question and then 

turn to Dr. Coburn, but of the folks that you have already met with 

or talked with, including some of the folks who you just named, 

what are some things you have learned from those conversations? 

Mr. ROTH. That the job of Inspector General is a very difficult 

one to get right, but it is a very important job to get right. And, 

as I said, I am going to move with due care, deliberate speed, talking to the folks who have done this before to understand the best 

way to move forward. 

Chairman CARPER. All right. Thanks very much. Dr. Coburn. 

Senator COBURN. Well, thank you again. One of your statements 

made in your opening statement, that you would work to avoid any 

undue influence, how do you do that when you have a Member of 

Congress or a significant management officer at Homeland Security 

trying to influence you? How do you put that off? 

Mr. ROTH. Right. Well, I mean, one thing is an understanding of 

the Inspector General Act, and Congress passed the Inspector General Act and it had the recent amendments to the Inspector General Act to insulate the Inspector General from exactly that. So, I 

take great comfort in the fact that if I am confirmed, there are 

statutory protections that are there. 

I would also say that the ethos of at least a line prosecutor in 

the Department of Justice is that you follow the facts wherever 

they go. Whether the heavens fall or not, you go and you find the 
10 

truth. So, that has been my credo throughout my career. There is 

no reason it should change if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed. 

Senator COBURN. How do you imagine you will handle inquiries 

from Congress about investigations or audits? 

Mr. ROTH. I mean, that is something, certainly, that we will have 

to take a look at. In speaking, for example, to former Inspector 

General Skinner as well as current Inspectors General, there is a 

fairly firm rule that we do not disclose the results of investigations 

until the investigation is final, and there is a number of good reasons why that is the case, particularly because you do not want to 

get it wrong. It does the Inspector General no good. It does Members of Congress no good if we put out piecemeal information that 

lacks context or may, in fact, be inaccurate. So, that would be one 

of the rules that the former Inspector General conveyed to me, 

which I think is very wise counsel which I am going to follow if I 

am confirmed. 

Senator COBURN. One of my concerns, and it is not just with the 

IG at Homeland Security, is, oftentimes, the findings of IGs on very 

good work is criticized by Members of Congress because they disagree with the outcome. And one of the things that concerns me is 

that those IGs do not come and defend their product, which also 

leads to poor morale, because if you have a group of people that 

work for a year or a year-and-a-half on a project and it is factually 

based and cogently deduced, and then it is put out and it receives 

criticism because it is not the expected outcome, and if the IG does 

not vigorously defend that work product, that undermines morale. 

It is my hope that when you all put out a product and it is criticized for political reasons, not factual reasons, that you, in fact, will 

defend that. Do you have any comments about that? 

Mr. ROTH. I take your advice to heart, and I believe that is good 

advice and that is something that I will do. I am a trial lawyer by 

heart, or by profession, so I am used to—— 

Senator COBURN. And by heart, 

Mr. ROTH. Yes, exactly. So, I am used to defending myself—— 

Senator COBURN. Yes. 

Mr. ROTH [continuing]. And I am more than happy to—facts are 

what facts are and we will let facts speak for themselves. 

Senator COBURN. One of the things you did when you worked at 

DOJ was facilitate the agency review process for IG reports. You 

noted the importance of an agency component being given sufficient 

time to comment prior to issuing the report, and I think that is important, too, because IGs do not always get it exactly right. How 

do you view the current comment period at DHS OIG, and do you 

think DHS has enough time right now? How much time should 

they have to comment, and would you recommend any changes to 

the process? 

Mr. ROTH. My understanding is that the internal deadline is a 

30-day deadline for comments, and again, it is going to be a balancing act, depending—you certainly want to get a product out in 

time for it to be relevant to the Committee or to the public or to 

the Administration. But, as you indicate, it is important to get it 

absolutely right. My understanding is that the 30-day time period 

can be waived under certain circumstances. So, I really think it 
11 

will depend on sort of the complexity of the report, the seriousness 

of it, and whether or not there is controversy attached to it. 

Senator COBURN. OK. Thank you. 

In November, I sent a letter to Acting Deputy Secretary Rafael 

Borras asking about the status of DHS’s open recommendations, 

and according to the IG’s Office, the Department had 1,239 open 

and unimplemented recommendations as of March 13, 2013. They 

could not tell us as of November, which is concerning in and of 

itself. Some of those recommendations are over 10 years old. What 

is your feeling about that, and how do you plan to followup and effectively move on those recommendations, whether you use us as 

a capability of trying to get that done or internal to your office? 

Mr. ROTH. I share your concern, Senator, with regard to that. It 

makes no sense to spend the resources and time to write reports 

and make recommendations if they are not going to be followed or 

not even agreed to. And, if I am confirmed, I think the first thing 

that I would need to take a look at is in that long list—I mean, 

one, is this a capacity problem? Is this a political will problem, because each of those problems are different. So, my intention would 

be, if I am confirmed, to get with the senior leadership within DHS 

to try to do some triage on those recommendations to understand 

what it is that needs to be done. 

I also think that, if I am confirmed, that the IG’s Office needs 

to pay a little bit more attention to follow-up, have some sort of 

feedback loop in which we have ticklers where, if things are not 

progressing as they are supposed to, we can write reports or notify 

the Committee or bring it to the attention of the senior leadership 

within the Department. 

Senator COBURN. OK. There is a large backlog of cases with the 

DHS OIG. I will not go into details because some of these are law 

enforcement sensitive. One of the challenges you are going to face 

is this backlog on open corruption investigations. Do you have any 

thoughts about how to handle that workload? 

Mr. ROTH. Certainly, if I am confirmed, I would like to go in and 

have a good talk with the Assistant IG for Investigations to understand, do you have the resources? Are we overloaded in certain 

ways? Is there a way we can do this? This is a continual problem 

for investigative agencies as well as prosecutors’ offices. I am well 

familiar with having a significant case backlog. When I was the 

U.S. Chief of Narcotics in Miami, it was the busiest narcotics office 

in the country. So, managing caseloads is a constant problem. It requires just constant attention. 

Senator COBURN. And priority setting. 

Mr. ROTH. Exactly. 

Senator COBURN. All right. I have two more small questions, if 

I might, and then I can be finished. 

In October, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel released a report 

that indicated a large amount of administratively uncontrolled 

overtime fraud by the Department employees at DHS. This is about 

$1.9 billion since 2010. It is unknown how prevalent this fraud is 

within the rest of the Department. Are you aware of this issue, and 

if confirmed, would your office investigate this? 

Mr. ROTH. I have read the media reports with regard to that, so 

I am aware that this issue is out there and I am certainly happy 
12 

to take a look at it, if I am confirmed, and see what it is that the 

IG’s Office can do. 

Senator COBURN. And then my final comment: As you know, 

there is an ongoing investigation by the IG’s Office on the Deputy 

Secretary. It is important that that be completed—one, that it be 

accurate for the benefit of Mr. Mayorkas, and two, that it is completed in a prompt manner and in a way that nobody can attest 

or challenge its scholarly basis. What I would like is a commitment 

from you publicly today that that will be a priority, because it is 

unfair for him to be in his position and that investigation to continue. 

Mr. ROTH. Yes. If I am confirmed, that will be a top priority. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you. 

Chairman CARPER. As we say in political campaigns, I am Tom 

Carper. I approve that message, so all right. 

Senator Johnson has joined us. Senator McCain has joined us. In 

the order of folks showing up, it will be Senator Tester, Senator 

Enzi, Senator Johnson, and last but not least, Senator McCain. 

Senator Tester. 

Senator TESTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Once again, thank you for being here today, John. You have 

talked about your expertise in criminal investigations and I think 

it is solid. In your opening statement, you talked about your experience with audits, particularly financial audits. Could you elaborate 

some more on your expertise in audits and investigations, or inspections, I mean, as it applies to this job. 

Mr. ROTH. Certainly. I think probably the best analogous experience I can give you is my work on the 9/11 Commission, where we 

ran the team that looked at the terrorist financing, and it really 

was a governmentwide audit. It was not of a single agency or a single component within an agency, but it was of the entire U.S. Government structure, how it worked—how terrorist finance worked in 

the intelligence community, how it worked in law enforcement, how 

it worked in diplomacy, how it worked as the policymaking apparatus, how it worked as a regulatory effort, as well. 

So, we spanned dozens of different agencies, looking at this. We 

wrote a report. It is very analogous to a criminal investigation in 

many ways. You review documents. You interview individuals. It is 

just the product happens to be different. The standards are not ‘‘beyond a reasonable doubt’’ but whether or not you are well founded 

in your conclusions. And, of course, it is important to get the report 

right, make it readable, make it understandable not only to the intended audience of experts but as well as the general public. 

If you look at the kinds of things that I would do if I was confirmed, you can look at that as an example. 

Senator TESTER. How long did that governmentwide audit take? 

Mr. ROTH. It took approximately 14 months. At least, my part of 

it took approximately 14 months. 

Senator TESTER. And then that is when they put out the results, 

was—do you remember? 

Mr. ROTH. Yes. I do not want to be precise, exactly, but—— 

Senator TESTER. No, give me a ballpark. 

Mr. ROTH [continuing]. It was approximately 14 to 18 months. 
13 

Senator TESTER. So, from a timeline standpoint, and we hate to 

put timelines around investigations, but the fact is, what kind of 

standard do you set as far as IG work? I mean, when do you like 

to have it done? And I know there is complexity, but what is the 

extended time? 

Mr. ROTH. Senator, I wish I could give you an answer that says 

an investigation should take 6 months. The difficulty is—— 

Senator TESTER. Got you. 

Mr. ROTH [continuing]. It just depends on the investigation. 

Senator TESTER. How about FDA? I mean, what has been the 

longest? What has been the shortest? 

Mr. ROTH. We resolved an investigation that was out there for 

6 years a couple months ago, and, we have quick hit investigations 

that take a matter of months. And some of it depends on are you 

trying to get evidence from somebody who takes their time giving 

you evidence, for example? Are you having trouble gathering documents? Are witnesses available to you? Unfortunately, I—— 

Senator TESTER. Got you. 

Mr. ROTH [continuing]. I wish I could give you an answer, but 

I cannot. 

Senator TESTER. That is fine. I appreciate the Ranking Member 

talking about the overtime issue because it is a big issue, and I appreciate your willingness to look into it. I think we have potential 

to have a legislative fix. It is sitting in Homeland Security and 

OMB right now, and hopefully, we can get their perspective out 

sooner rather than later because it is a big issue and I am glad you 

are willing to deal with it. 

I want to talk about cybersecurity for a second because there are 

huge investments being made in DHS in technology, billions of dollars. Back in 2011, the DHS IG released a report saying that the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) information technology (IT) infrastructure management were not sufficient to support their mission. We wrote a letter on this Committee to Secretary Janet Napolitano saying that if FEMA could not continue to 

manage its IT systems and future investments with a ‘‘do it your 

own way’’ approach, which is spot on—this is not the first time that 

we have talked about IT problems, systems that are not compatible 

with the greater goal of the Department. 

What kind of emphasis have you or will you place on IT when 

it comes to DHS? What have you applied to FDA as far as waste, 

overlap on these programs that literally cost billions and billions of 

dollars? 

Mr. ROTH. Sure. Well, in the Office of Criminal Investigations, 

we run our own IT shop, both the IT that we need to do our daily 

job, which includes some specialized databases and the like, as well 

as doing the forensics IT in an investigation, for example, with 

seized computers or Internet investigations. 

I know that the Office of Inspector General has done quite a bit 

of work in this area. I know that there is a report that was recently 

released with regard to the efforts in the Department with regard 

to this. It was a fairly mixed scorecard, that there had been 

progress made but significant progress to be done. And certainly, 

if I am confirmed, I would continue that work. 
14 

Senator TESTER. What kind of work did you do in IT with the 

FDA? That had to be a fairly large component in FDA, as I would 

imagine. 

Mr. ROTH. It was. Because the Office of Criminal Investigations 

is sort of a sub-unit, we ran our own IT shop. I would not call it 

extensive, though. 

Senator TESTER. OK. All right. Well, once again, I want to thank 

you for your willingness to serve and thank you for being here 

today, and hopefully, we can both hope for a quick confirmation. 

Thank you. 

Chairman CARPER. Thanks, Senator Tester. Senator Enzi. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ENZI 

Senator ENZI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Roth, for being here. I am pleased to see that 

you have experience with several financial investigations like September 11, 2001, that go beyond the usual audits that Inspectors 

General make. I am an accountant by training, as is my colleague, 

Senator Johnson, and one of the things being an accountant will 

teach you is that numbers do not lie. You can use your experience 

investigating fraud, money laundering, financial corruption, as well 

as inefficiency, duplication, and wasteful spending of taxpayers’ 

dollars at the Department of Homeland Security. 

In November, about the time you were nominated, the Government Accountability Office reported that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) program for screening passengers by behavior detection techniques cost $900 million since 2007 but was 

ineffective at improving safety. Would you agree this is an example 

of the kind of program that you could be proactively looking at? 

Mr. ROTH. Yes, Senator, you are—— 

Senator ENZI. How would you do it? 

Mr. ROTH. You are referring to the Screening of Passengers by 

Observation Technique (SPOT) program, I believe, and the Inspector General’s Office, in fact, wrote a report with regard to that— 

actually, several reports regarding the fact that, currently, TSA 

does not have any measures of effectiveness. They do not know exactly whether or not the program works as intended. I also have 

reviewed some GAO audits with regard to that which have essentially come to the same conclusion. 

So, you are correct to be concerned, and if I am confirmed, I certainly will continue the work in coordination with GAO that the Inspector General has already done. 

Senator ENZI. OK. Thank you. So, whistleblowers can also play 

an important role in identifying waste, fraud, duplication, and unnecessary programs, and so in addition to reporting potential illegal activities, I am glad you have indicated that you want to take 

whistleblowers seriously. What do you think is the best way to encourage the DHS employees and members of that community to 

come forward with ways to help the organization run more efficiently? 

Mr. ROTH. I know that the Inspector General community has 

standards by which they encourage whistleblowers to come in, for 

example, tip lines, 1–800 numbers, things that they can do on the 

Web site to encourage people to come in. There is also a publicity 
15 

campaign within the agency, or within the Department, to ensure 

people understand what their rights are as whistleblowers. And, ultimately, I think, what people will see is that if we treat whistleblowers seriously, we treat them with the kinds of sensitivity that 

is necessary when you are dealing with a whistleblower, then they 

will come in. 

Senator ENZI. OK. Thank you. Now, the Transportation Administration is also expanding prescreening of passengers before they arrive at the airport, and that is supposed to streamline the security 

for many passengers. But there are concerns that it includes a wide 

array of personal information, including financial information, tax 

information, property records, all sorts of things, and a lot of people 

are telling me that they wonder what is being done with all that 

information that is collected on the passengers. What do you see 

as the limits of the kind of intelligence gathering on U.S. citizens 

by the TSA or other agencies in the Department of Homeland Security? 

Mr. ROTH. I am not familiar with the specifics that you are referring to, Senator, but certainly, privacy is important and we need 

to balance, obviously, individual liberties with the safety of the 

traveling public. I am more than happy to take a look at this and 

explore that with the Committee, if you so choose. 

Senator ENZI. So, you would work proactively to identify any of 

this data collection that is not necessary for passenger safety? 

Mr. ROTH. Yes. 

Senator ENZI. Thank you. I do not have any other questions. 

Chairman CARPER. Thank you, Senator Enzi. Senator Johnson. 

Senator COBURN. Just one note for the record. 

Chairman CARPER. Sure. Please. 

Senator COBURN. There are three accountants sitting at the dais. 

Senator ENZI. Yes. [Laughter.] 

Senator COBURN. I just wanted to be sure I was recognized. 

Senator JOHNSON. I was actually going to point that out, Senator 

Coburn. [Laughter.] 

Chairman CARPER. All right. Senator Johnson. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHNSON 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Roth, thank you for taking the time, coming in and seeing 

me in the office. I am very pleased with this nomination. I think 

your background is going to suit you well for the challenge ahead. 

I thought it was interesting. You said you have read an awful lot 

of these reports and you understand the challenges. God bless you 

for still being willing to serve here. 

Senator Coburn started talking about how you are going to 

prioritize your activities here. Can you just talk about the criteria 

you are going to use in prioritizing the caseload? 

Mr. ROTH. Sure. I have a deep background. There are always 

more cases than there are resources in the Department of Justice, 

so it is second nature to have to prioritize things. And typically, the 

way we prioritize them is by risk, and not only sort of public safety 

risk, but I think the Department is facing two challenges. One is, 

of course, to fight terrorism, which is an existential threat that we 

can never disregard or minimize. But there is also the threat that 
16 

faces us with regard to the financial situation that we find ourselves. So the other way I would prioritize it is the threat to the 

taxpayer, the kinds of money that are going out and the potential 

savings that an investigation could have. 

Senator JOHNSON. So, level of threat and the dollar value. 

Mr. ROTH. Correct. 

Senator JOHNSON. Obviously, you report to the Secretary of the 

Department. Who do you think you work for? Can you just kind of, 

just in general, what your feeling is, if you understand the thrust 

of my question. 

Mr. ROTH. I do, and this is something that I have had conversations with a number of Inspectors General about, because that is 

the fundamental challenge of a position like this, is that you report 

to—not only do you report to the Secretary of the agency in which 

you work, but you also report to Congress. It is a dual reporting 

requirement by statute. And, ultimately, for me, I have to report 

to myself. I have to do the job that I believe that I was hired to 

do by the American people. And it is going to have to happen on 

a case-by-case basis, and I will try to figure these things out as we 

go. 

Senator JOHNSON. We were talking earlier about how you handle 

reports and how the agencies, the time they are allowed to review 

the reports. I would like you to address how, then, should those 

agencies—how should that be included in those final reports. What 

is the appropriate way for that to be incorporated? 

Mr. ROTH. My understanding is that the general way it is done 

in the Inspector General community, as well as the GAO, is that 

you conduct your investigation, you write your report, and then you 

give the agency an opportunity to comment on it. And the reason 

you do that is it is critically important that you get your facts 

right. So, to the extent that they want to change facts or argue 

about the facts, perfectly happy to do that, if I am confirmed. Obviously, conclusions have to be Inspector General’s conclusions and 

no one else’s. 

Senator JOHNSON. Would those facts be actually changed in the 

reports, or does the report stand as published by the IG’s office and 

then those comments or the changed facts would be as an addendum to that? 

Mr. ROTH. They would actually be changed within. My dealings, 

for example, with Glenn Fine, the former Inspector General in the 

Department of Justice, was that you could actually do a line edit 

of the report itself, not changing facts, but you are changing language within a report, and then if you have arguments as to the 

conclusions that those facts reasonably lead you to, that would be 

an attachment to the Inspector General’s report. 

Senator JOHNSON. You are aware of the problems within the IG’s 

Office, and I see the Chairman of my Subcommittee on Financial 

and Contracting Oversight has just joined us here. We will be publishing a report. I do not want to talk about specifics until we actually publish it. What would be your intentions in terms of how you 

would handle a report, and maybe that is not a particularly fair 

question, but there are some real problems of independence, some 

improper behavior. Is that something you are going to be dealing 
17 

with, or is that something you push off to the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE), or—— 

Mr. ROTH. With regard to the previous management within the 

office, I think I need to take a look at exactly what the situation 

is. I look forward to the report that your Subcommittee will 

produce and I will take a look at the facts and determine whether 

or not it is appropriate for me, it is appropriate for CIGIE, it is appropriate for someone else. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. But you will work closely with our Subcommittee, then, to try and get some fair resolution to that situation? 

Mr. ROTH. Absolutely, Senator. 

Senator JOHNSON. You said you have read a number of reports. 

Have you reviewed the culture report from the IG’s Office on the 

Secret Service? 

Mr. ROTH. I have. 

Senator JOHNSON. What was your conclusion, reading that? 

Mr. ROTH. To be fair, Senator, I would really like to talk to the 

people who wrote that report and understand exactly what was 

going on before I comment on it. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. It did conclude that they did not find any 

evidence that misconduct is widespread in the U.S. Secret Service. 

Is that kind of the feeling you got from that report, that the report 

was substantive enough, that it was rigorous enough to be able to 

draw that conclusion? 

Mr. ROTH. It is a long report and I think there are facts on both 

sides of that conclusion as you read that report. For example, the 

individuals who, for example, had witnessed solicitation of prostitution, none of them reported to the supervisors, and the reason the 

vast majority of them did not report it is that they believed either 

that they would be retaliated against or that nothing would occur. 

But, again, I do not want to get into the substance of that report—— 

Senator JOHNSON. Sure. 

Mr. ROTH [continuing]. Until I actually talk to the authors. 

Senator JOHNSON. Let me just go over a couple of numbers, because I am an accountant and I do like numbers. Sort of the basis 

of the conclusion was really a voluntary survey, 41 percent of the 

personnel in the Secret Service responded to that. So, 41 percent. 

Of that, 83 percent said they were not familiar with that kind of 

behavior, which means that 17 percent were familiar with that 

kind of behavior. So, the survey was answered by 2,575 employees. 

Twenty-one-hundred-and-forty-four said they were not familiar 

with that behavior, but that means 431 members of the Secret 

Service personnel actually were familiar with that kind of behavior. 

So, I guess my point would be, I am not sure I would draw that 

same conclusion, so I am still concerned. I remain unconvinced during the hearing we had in May 2012 that this may not be a bigger 

problem in the Secret Service. I think it is incredibly important 

that we restore the credibility of that agency, so I hope you will 

also work with us in terms of getting to the bottom of that situation, as well. 

Mr. ROTH. I am happy to. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
18 

Chairman CARPER. Before I turn to Senator McCain, we had a 

hearing here, about a year ago, and the Director of the Secret Service Mark Sullivan was here to testify with respect to Cartagena. 

And at the end of my conversation, my questioning of him, I recounted the story of the parable in the New Testament where a 

woman was about to be stoned and Jesus said to those who would 

stone here, ‘‘Let those of you without sin cast the first stone,’’ and 

everybody eventually dropped their stones and walked away. And 

then He turned to the woman who was about to be stoned and He 

said to her, ‘‘Go and sin no more.’’ 

My admonition to the Secret Service was, go and sin no more, 

and the interesting thing for me is looking ahead, not just what 

happened, but in terms of the behavior that flows or the change of 

the behavior that has flowed from that incident. I am interested in 

looking and learning with Senator Johnson, and certainly with 

Senator McCaskill, about the changes in behavior and maybe 

changes in culture that have flowed from the investigation, all the 

attention and the change in management in that agency. 

All right. Senator McCain, good to see you. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR McCAIN 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you, Mr. Roth. You bring, I think, great 

credentials to your position. I was reading your opening statement. 

You said you lead the team in the 9/11 Commission looking into 

U.S. Government preparedness and reaction to the 9/11 attacks as 

it related to the financing of terrorism. How are we doing since 

then? 

Mr. ROTH. Unfortunately, Senator, I have not been close to the 

data or the intelligence since I wrote that report, so it is difficult 

for me to conclude one way or the other. 

Senator MCCAIN. DHS has experienced a number of serious acquisition failures. The most egregious in my view was the failed 

SBInet project, a virtual fence that was supposed to encompass the 

entire border. It cost the taxpayers a billion dollars and covers only 

53 miles. I would hope, and I admittedly speak in a very parochial 

viewpoint, I hope you will look at the measures that are being 

taken and expenditure of tax dollars on border security. The border 

in my State is still not secure. We have spent billions of dollars on 

border security and I believe that the SBInet is a scandal. It was 

a scandal when you spend over a billion dollars and end up with 

53 miles of surveillance capability. 

I hope that one of your priorities would be to look at the whole 

issue of what we are doing on the issue of border security. There 

is still an enormous flow of drugs across our Southern Border. 

There are still problems, serious problems, with human smuggling 

and all of the terrible aspects of that, the mistreatment of these 

people by the coyotes. The violence in Mexico continues as a result 

of that. And I know of no one who has intimate knowledge of our 

Southern Border who would agree that we have increased sufficiently border security for us to tell the American people that we 

are at least within range of compliance with the comprehensive immigration bill which we passed which requires 90 percent—quote, 

‘‘90 percent effective control of our border.’’ We do not have that. 
19 

Another aspect of this I would like you to look at is the metrics 

with which we measure border security. Before this Committee, the 

former Secretary of Homeland Security testified that because apprehensions were down, that meant that our border was more secure. Well, we know now that because of the economic recovery, 

primarily, apprehensions are up. Does that mean, therefore, that 

our border is less secure? Obviously, we do not have metrics to determine the degree of border security that we have. 

I think that it is pretty logical to argue that if we do not have 

a secure border, that sooner or later, someone who wants to commit 

an act of terrorism will come across a border that is not secure. I 

think that it falls directly into the issue of national security, the 

issue of security of our border. 

And, by the way, our commerce and our trade with Mexico has 

dramatically increased. We have a good government in Mexico now, 

in my view. But we still have not, in the estimate of the people 

that I know who are living and working on the border, anywhere 

near the adequate security of our border that would be necessary 

to be able to ensure to our citizens that they have a sense of security and ability to prevent another attack on the United States of 

America. I would like to hear your response to that. 

Mr. ROTH. Yes, Senator. I share your views that an unsecured 

border is pernicious for a number of reasons. I am a former narcotics prosecutor and investigator and I am well familiar with the 

challenges on the Southwest border with regard to narcotics trafficking. And as you indicated, it is a magnet for organized crime, 

for human trafficking, for all sorts of criminal behavior. 

DHS, from my view and my review of the materials, spends a lot 

of money attempting to secure the Southwest border. I think it is 

important to be able to have metrics, to understand whether or not 

we are getting what we asked for or what we are spending our 

money on, so I am happy to take a look at that issue and see if 

the Office of Inspector General, if I am confirmed, can add to that 

analysis. 

Senator MCCAIN. Well, I hope you will, because a rather extraordinary thing happened in the confirmation of the new Secretary of 

Homeland Security, and that is he refused to give this Committee, 

me or Members of this Committee the metrics that are required to 

comply with the law that we passed of 90 percent effective control 

of our border, probably one of the first outcomes of the so-called 

‘‘nuclear option,’’ because under a previous situation, I would have 

insisted on receiving that information, which I think is a legitimate 

request by Members of Congress, which leads me almost not to 

have come to this hearing today or any other hearing that the Secretary of Homeland Security is present, because if he refuses to 

give fundamental information that is necessary for me to represent 

the people of my State as far as border security is concerned, we 

have made a mockery of the advise and consent. 

And I say to my good friend, the Chairman, again, I am deeply 

disappointed that you would not insist that I receive that fundamental information, and it will affect the degree of cooperation or 

the ability to work together. 

I thank you, Mr. Roth. 

Mr. ROTH. Thank you. 
20 

Chairman CARPER. Let me just say, in response to Senator 

McCain’s last comments, I am eager to see the Department and the 

Secretary provide the information you have requested. I expect you 

will hear from him shortly as the Secretary with an offer to discuss 

with you just how to go about providing that information. And 

when he makes that overture, I just would encourage you to be receptive. Thank you. 

All right. And next, Senator Ayotte, followed by Senator 

McCaskill. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AYOTTE 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you, Mr. Roth. I am very impressed with 

your qualifications for this position. 

Let me just add that—echo what my colleague, Senator McCain, 

just said. One of the things that really troubled me, as well, in 

terms of the recent change in the rules, not only that my colleague 

could not get a fair answer to his question to the Secretary of 

Homeland Security, but also that we—I know that you have already been asked about it by Senator Coburn—but that we took 

the unprecedented step of confirming a Deputy Secretary to the Department of Homeland Security who was under active investigation 

by the OIG, and I do not think we would have previously done that 

but for the change in these rules. 

And so let me just add to what Senator McCain said, that I very 

much hope that we can get answers to legitimate questions that 

our constituents have, and I hope in your new position you will 

take very seriously that this investigation, despite confirmation, 

should not be swept under the rug or not followed through. I hope 

you will give us that commitment. 

Mr. ROTH. Yes, I will, Senator. 

Senator AYOTTE. I appreciate it. Thank you. 

I wanted to ask you about the relationship that OIG has with 

GAO and how you anticipate that relationship would be in this new 

position when you are confirmed, and how important do you think 

GAO is to your work, and also whether you have had an opportunity to look at some of the work that is being done on data consolidation. There is a tremendous number of data centers across 

government that are being consolidated and that DHS is doing a 

tremendous amount of work on that, of taking 101 of those and 

working to consolidate those to 37. What position do you think you 

could help in terms of IG of helping us manage the data more efficiently and in particular focusing on saving money for taxpayers. 

Mr. ROTH. Senator, to answer the GAO question first, if I may, 

during the preparation for this hearing as well as the nomination, 

I was able to read a number of GAO reports with regard to Homeland Security and they have done an enormous body of work, including the work that they have done on the High-Risk List. I was 

fortunate enough to meet with members of the GAO prior to this 

hearing, including the Comptroller General, and I am confident 

that we can work with each other and not duplicate each other’s 

efforts, but, in fact, leverage off each other’s reports to work in a 

way that makes sense for DHS, for this Committee, and for the 

American people. 
21 

With regard to the data centers, I will confess not to have any 

background in that. I have not reviewed materials on that, but I 

am certainly happy to take a look at that, should I be confirmed. 

Senator AYOTTE. I appreciate it. Other Members of this Committee—most of the Committee, we have worked on this issue, to 

introduce legislation to improve the consolidation efforts of the data 

centers. But this is an area where it is, just frankly, a mess, and 

we could save a tremendous amount of taxpayers dollars and, 

frankly, I think, do a better job on this issue. So, I hope you will 

focus on it in your new role. 

I also wanted to ask, as well, about the issue—I know Senator 

Tester touched upon it—but in October 2013, the Office of the Special Counsel of Investigation revealed that some Department of 

Homeland Security employees were abusing an administratively 

uncontrolled overtime pay system and amassing millions of dollars 

in unearned pay. The report found that the problem was profound 

and entrenched. 

This is just one example of, obviously, waste, fraud, abuse that 

you are going to have an incredibly important role in revealing. 

Have you had a chance to review that particular report or investigation, and what is your view on it, and what do you think you 

can do in terms of when something is described as entrenched, of 

changing the system? 

Mr. ROTH. Certainly. And I have read the reports. I have not spoken with anyone, for example, with the expertise of a back-up document, so it is difficult for me to opine on exactly what is going on. 

My sense is that it is a statutory problem that probably lends itself 

to a statutory fix, but this is something, certainly, I would be 

happy to take a look at if I am confirmed. 

Senator AYOTTE. Well, that would be great, and I know that I, 

for one, would look forward to working with you on whatever statutory fix needs to be made to ensure that this does not happen in 

the future. 

And then, finally, as a followup, you were asked by Senator 

McCain about your experience on the 9/11 Commission and you 

said that you have not, obviously, been privy to the information 

post-9/11 Commission involvement. I would hope in this new position—I would be very interested in hearing your impressions once 

you are able to dig in as to where we are and a reassessment of 

how much progress we have made and what else we need to do. 

And one of those issues that I think is important is the Boston 

Marathon bombing. I know that the IG from the Department of 

Justice is looking at the information sharing that went on in advance of the bombing with regard to contacts that various Federal 

agencies had with the Tsarnaev brothers. I think that in this new 

position, you could play a very important role in terms of the information that may have come to DHS’s attention and how we can ensure that that information goes all the way down to the ground 

level so that from the officer on the street, to our Federal Bureau 

of Investigations (FBI) agents, to our Joint Terrorism Task Force, 

that we are aware of prior contacts like that. 

So, I do not know if you have had a chance to review any of that 

or to have any interaction on this issue involving the Boston Mara-
22 

thon bombing, but I believe this is an important issue, as well, for 

your new position. 

Mr. ROTH. Yes. I am aware that there is a pending investigation. 

My understanding is this is a joint investigation between a number 

of IGs, including the DHS IG. 

Senator AYOTTE. Great. Well, I look forward to you putting a 

very strong priority on this, and I think you bring a special expertise to it, given your experience on the 9/11 Commission, to put it 

in perspective. 

Mr. ROTH. Thank you. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you. 

Chairman CARPER. Senator Ayotte, thanks for your questions. 

Thanks for being here. 

Senator McCaskill, welcome. Good to see you. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR McCASKILL 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you. Good to be here. 

First, let me address your family for a moment. Your dad and 

your husband has a great deal of talent and capability and he has 

chosen in his life to not go out and make huge money, but rather 

to toil away in office buildings in very dangerous work for most of 

his career. And I want to thank you all. I know how proud you are 

of him and I want you to know we appreciate the sacrifices that 

you make every day so that he can continue to serve the public. 

I am glad you are going to be here. This is a really important 

IG job. You have a real morale problem on your hands, Mr. Roth. 

You have a staff that is divided between those who were making 

the accusations against Mr. Edwards and those who were hired by 

and remain loyal to Mr. Edwards, and that is a very difficult management challenge. I am sure that all of them, regardless of whether they were the whistleblowers on the inappropriate conduct of 

your predecessor or whether they are some of the talent that Mr. 

Edwards may have brought to the agency—figuring out how to 

meld that together in a working unit and get past these serious 

morale problems that you have right now is really going to be a 

challenge. 

Do you have any plans as to how you are going to bridge the divide between these two camps that have been warring for some 

time at this IG’s Office? 

Mr. ROTH. I acknowledge this is going to be, if I am confirmed, 

a very significant issue that I am going to have to face early on, 

and one of the things that I have found in agencies that have morale problems and have these kind of warring camps is a lack of 

focus on mission, and I think it is very important to refocus people 

on the very important mission that the Inspector General’s Office 

has, particularly in an agency like DHS, where there is so much 

good work to be done. 

So, my goal is to try to have people hit the reset button, and 

whatever happened in the past has happened in the past. I was not 

involved in that. I take no position on it. But what I do take a position on is people are going to do their jobs, they are going to focus 

on the mission, and we are going to get this thing done right. 

Senator MCCASKILL. You have two agents in the field office in 

McAllen, Texas, that were indicted for falsifying records to conceal 
23 

real lapses in your office’s standards. I am biased in this regard. 

I believe that the job of an auditor and the job of a prosecutor are 

kissing cousins because both of them must be dictated by the facts 

and they must have an incredible rigor about following the facts 

and not any political considerations. Those decisions have to be 

brutally independent, and by their very definition, they are difficult. 

Obviously, you have, once again, warring factions and conflict, 

because many of the field offices under your supervision believe 

they have suffered in morale because of the heavy hand of the central office. On the other hand, you have got people being indicted 

for concealing information—for falsifying records to conceal information in regards to standards. Have you given any thought about 

how you marry those two difficult propositions? 

Mr. ROTH. No. And, again, this is a difficult proposition and I 

agree with you that it is going to take some work to do. I am fortunate in the fact that there are new Assistant Inspectors General in 

both the audit and the investigation function that, my understanding, were not involved in many of these things. I am going to 

get with those folks, but the other thing I am going to do is pack 

a suitcase and fly down there and figure out what the problems 

are, to be a good listener and see if we can resolve these issues in 

a way that is best for DHS, and again, focused on the very important mission of the Inspector General’s Office. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Having reviewed your record and had an 

opportunity to visit with you at some length about the job that you 

were are willing to undertake—which I am grateful that you are 

willing to undertake it—I have a few questions that I want to get 

on the record, not that I think your answers are going to surprise 

me here, but I think it is important, and I think you appreciate 

getting things on the record and how that is important as we try 

to continue to do the right kind of oversight and accountability of 

this agency. 

Do you ever believe it would be appropriate to negotiate the timing of a release of a report with DHS for any reason? 

Mr. ROTH. No, Senator. 

Senator MCCASKILL. If you are asked to remove information from 

a report by the Secretary’s office, would you inform your Assistant 

IG for Audits or Investigations or others about such a conversation? 

Mr. ROTH. Yes. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Under what circumstances is it appropriate 

to ask the Secretary’s General Counsel for legal advice? 

Mr. ROTH. I am not sure whether there is ever a circumstance 

in which that is necessary. The Inspector General Act, as you 

know, gives the Inspector General his own General Counsel and 

the right, also, to ping other General Counsels of other Inspectors 

General. So, I am not sure of a circumstance in which I would do 

that. There may be one. I simply cannot think of one off the top 

of my head. 

Senator MCCASKILL. In the IG’s communications with Congress, 

under what circumstances would it be appropriate to share information with members or staff of one party but not of the other? 
24 

Mr. ROTH. Again, it is hard for me to conceive of a circumstance 

where that would be appropriate. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Well, and I think that is something that— 

it is a very hard thing to do around here, to be agnostic—— 

Mr. ROTH. Sure. 

Senator MCCASKILL [continuing]. About party identification. If 

there is ever a place that it is essential, it is in the role of IG. The 

minute you try to play ball with one side or the other—it does not 

matter whether you are playing ball with the Democrats or the Republicans—that means an immediate loss of credibility of the agency because then it is not about the facts, it is about the politics. 

I just wanted to make sure I got all that on the record at this 

hearing. I look forward to you having some uncomfortable moments 

in my Subcommittee and also look forward to working with you to 

try to strengthen the independence of your office. And, obviously, 

I know the Chairman and Senator Johnson, who is the Ranking 

Member of my Subcommittee, I know all of us just want you to be 

able to succeed and do the work that this agency so desperately 

needs. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ROTH. Thank you, Senator. 

Chairman CARPER. Senator McCaskill, something that you said 

and something that Mr. Roth said earlier, I was talking to him 

about the values that he learned from his parents, and one of the 

things that he mentioned is integrity. I think Senator McCaskill 

really just gave you some real good advice and I would like to second it. 

One of the great quotes I have heard on integrity, though, is this. 

Integrity, if you have got it, nothing else matters. If you do not 

have it, nothing else matters. So, that is a great one to learn from 

your folks for all of us. 

I have a couple more questions and then I will yield back to Senator Johnson, if you would like to ask some more. Senator 

McCaskill, as you are heading out the door, just thank you so much 

for joining us. 

One thought that comes to mind is just in terms of advice, just 

if, by chance, you are confirmed, but I would urge you, and you 

may have already done this, to identify IGs that are going into an 

agency where morale is lapsing, where there has been an agency 

in turmoil, and talk to whoever has come in and done a good job 

and just to learn from that person how they have done it. 

As you know, the relationship between the Inspector General and 

a Secretary of a Department or a Deputy Secretary of a Department, in a way, it is sort of an arm’s length relationship, but there 

needs to be an ability to work together. In my previous role as Governor, in working with our State auditor as they audited all of our 

different agencies, a lot of the information they gave us was good, 

but we had audits that came from the State auditor that were not 

timely. They covered a period of time that may have been a year 

or two ago, that had already been addressed, and there was no recognition of that in the audit. 

So, the role that the IG could play can be very, very constructive, 

very, very helpful, but it has to be timely, and I think the ability 

to have a good conversation, ongoing dialog, even at times there 
25 

will be disagreements, but I think that is important and I urge you 

to try, and I will urge the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary to 

work with you to create that kind of working relationship. It will 

not just help you in the job that you and your folks are doing in 

the IG’s Office, but it will help them make better leaders and it 

will help, ultimately help the taxpayers. And we will not have anything to do here, right, Ron? We will just have to find other things 

to focus on. 

All right. Program effectiveness. You obviously have extensive 

experience on the investigative side of the ledger, maybe less background focusing on the IG’s mandate to promote general improvement, in this case, in the Department of Homeland Security’s operations and programs. I would just ask you to discuss for just a 

minute or two what experience you have had in identifying program weaknesses and recommending improvements. How would 

you approach this part of the OIG mission within the Department? 

Mr. ROTH. Certainly, Senator, and I think that is absolutely important, that we not only learn from—or be the watchdog and the 

overseer with regard to DHS operations, but also to try, if I am 

confirmed, to be the advocate for good government. 

Certainly, I have seen that DHS has done some of that. The IG’s 

Office has done some of that. For example, some of the reports with 

regard to FEMA, the response to, for example, Hurricane Sandy, 

I believe there was a report that was recently written that talked 

about the things that FEMA did that made it effective in their initial response to the hurricane. It was more than just a cheerleading 

session. These are the things that they did with an attempt to sort 

of advocate that that get replicated in future disaster events. 

So, if I am confirmed, that is something I certainly would want 

to do as I move forward. 

Chairman CARPER. A second followup question goes back to acquisitions. The Subcommittee that Senator Johnson and Senator 

McCaskill lead focuses on a number of things, but one of those is 

acquisitions, and let me just focus a little bit on that and maybe 

on the sort of the management side of the ledger at the Department of Homeland Security. 

I will say at the beginning, leadership is the most important criteria I have seen for almost any entity being successful. If you have 

great leadership, I do not care if it is a business, I do not care if 

it is a school, I do not care if it is a governmental unit, I do not 

care if it is military, it is athletic, if you have got good leadership, 

I will show you a team that is on the way up. If you do not have 

it, then I will show you a team that is probably not going to go far, 

wherever that team might be, and that is why it is so important. 

We are making progress in terms of meeting the need for leadership within DHS. There are still too many gaping holes in the Department, but the Secretary, the Deputy Secretary, this position, if 

we can fill these and a couple of others this month, that would be 

great progress. 

The Department of Homeland Security has struggled, as you 

know, over the years, with management of its major acquisitions. 

Senator McCain referred to one or two of those. In recent years, the 

Department’s leadership has initiated several efforts at the Department level to provide more oversight by headquarters of the major 
26 

acquisition of some of the different components. For example, the 

Department has implemented, they call it an Integrated Investment Strategy, to look at the total needs of the Department so that 

acquisitions are not carried out in a stovepipe way in those different components. 

Let me just ask, what would be your approach to assessing these 

efforts, if you would, please. 

Mr. ROTH. Certainly, Senator. And what DHS has done, in my 

reading and in my perception, is that they have attempted to put 

a governance structure on major acquisitions. Whether it be IT or 

other kinds of infrastructure improvements, you have to have a 

governance so people understand, what is it that you are trying to 

do? What is the best way to get there, the most cost effective way 

to get there? 

And I think the IG has a very critical role to play, not only in 

taking a look at that governance structure, but equally important, 

to ensure that the components follow the governance structure. So, 

it is there to protect those components from waste, fraud, and 

abuse. It is perfectly appropriate for the Inspector General to be 

able to take a look at that and ensure that they are complying with 

it. 

Chairman CARPER. OK. In terms of acquisition in IT, especially, 

we spend, as a Committee, a fair amount of time focusing on data 

centers, IT. We do not do IT all that well in the Federal Government. One of our problems at DHS is they hire people, sometimes 

fairly junior people, maybe newly out of school, and sometimes with 

good experience but sometimes not so much. We train them. We get 

them up to speed. They get hired away by the National Security 

Agency (NSA) or some other entity in the private sector and then 

we have to start all over again. 

One of the things that Dr. Coburn and I and our Committee have 

worked on is how do we bolster the workforce to keep abilities in 

the workforce and enable DHS and the IT world to be able—and 

the cyber world—to develop the kind of capabilities we have at 

NSA. 

So, let me continue with my thought and my questions with respect to acquisition. It seems while everyone seems to agree that 

the Department needs stronger management, not everyone is willing to fund the management functions of the Department. I have 

been particularly concerned about steep proposed cuts in the management side in the House version of the DHS appropriations bill, 

which is taking shape literally as we meet here this week. Will you 

be willing to identify management functions within the Department that are weaker than they should be because of lack of funding? Is that something that you could see the OIG helping us in? 

Mr. ROTH. I think that falls squarely, Senator, within the OIG 

mission, and if I am confirmed, I am perfectly happy to take a look 

at that. 

Chairman CARPER. All right. And a third question, and then I 

will yield to Senator Johnson, but I mentioned cybersecurity a 

minute ago, and let me just come back to it. But, as you know, one 

of the greatest challenges that face our Nation and our Federal 

agencies—I read something, Senator Johnson, just this week that 

reiterated that again in terms of threats to our national security 
27 

that is regarded as a higher one by many than terrorism, and that 

is regarded by many within our defense agencies, or intelligence 

agencies. But, the Department of Homeland Security, along with, 

as you know, many other agencies, plays a significant role in securing cyberspace, auditing complex and highly technical areas such 

as the cybersecurity posture of the Department requires strong expertise and close collaboration with Department officials. 

If confirmed, how would you work with the Department to carry 

out its role in cybersecurity, and any thoughts you have on how 

you might improve it, where necessary. 

Mr. ROTH. Certainly. And I agree, this is critically important, 

and it is important not to be fighting the last war but try to prepare for the next war, and—— 

Chairman CARPER. Yes. We are pretty good at fighting the last 

one, usually. 

Mr. ROTH. I was able to review the testimony and the hearing 

that this Committee had on the anniversary of September 11 this 

year, where, for example, Admiral Thad Allen testified with regard 

to this, and it is critically important. 

Chairman CARPER. That was a really good hearing. 

Mr. ROTH. It is critically important to get this right. I know that 

the Office of Inspector General has a specialized unit that takes a 

look at IT issues. If I am confirmed, I would like to take a look at 

that and make sure we have the kind of expertise, this kind of vision that is necessary to really add value to the DHS efforts in this 

area. 

Chairman CARPER. All right. Thank you. Senator Johnson. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would just like to quickly go back to the issue of the Secret 

Service, respond a little bit to your comments, but also connect the 

dots between a question I had and one of your previous answers. 

There is no doubt about it, we have to be looking forward and 

we have to make sure that we put the policies in place, the controls 

in place, so Cartagena does not happen again. But in response to 

my question about prioritization, your first priority was national 

security. In no way, shape, or form did I continue to pursue our investigation that was happening of the Secret Service because I relished it. I did it because I truly believe that that type of behavior 

puts at risk not only people’s lives, but our national security. 

And I had hoped that the culture report, first of all, would have 

come back in a far more timely fashion. I would have hoped it 

would have been far more rigorous. I would have hoped that I 

could have agreed with its conclusion, that this behavior is not potentially widespread. I still do not know. I hope it is not widespread, but I read that culture report and in no way, shape, or 

form can I conclude that we do not have a problem in the Secret 

Service. 

So, I guess I just hope that you adhere to your initial answer to 

my question, that our national security is your top priority in terms 

of looking at these issues, and I hope you agree with me that this 

question remains unanswered, because I just simply do not believe 

the culture report even begins to have as much rigor as what it 

should have. And my questions started immediately from that May 

2012 hearing with Director Sullivan, that I simply do not believe 
28 

that the testimony was credible from a standpoint that this was a 

one-time occurrence. I am still highly concerned. I think the question is still on the table and I hope you truly pursue that so we 

can get to the bottom of it, we can assure ourselves, and then we 

can move forward with a credible Secret Service agency that protects people’s lives and our national security. Thank you. 

Chairman CARPER. Let me just think out loud here, this is something that Senator Johnson cares deeply about, has focused and his 

staff a lot of time and attention on. So has the IG’s Office. So has 

the Inspector General. He has spent a great deal of time and have 

come forward, I think, with a timely report. Sometimes, reports 

take years. Investigations take years to develop a completed product. In this case, I think the agency has come forth with timely 

work. 

What I would urge you to consider doing, both of you, is, if you 

are confirmed—I hope you will be—that one of the first orders of 

business will be to convene a briefing on Capitol Hill in which you 

and the folks that are intimately involved in the investigation brief 

Senator Johnson and his staff on this matter. And once you have 

done that, Senator Johnson, you may want to consider spending 

some time with the still new—Director of the Secret Service and 

some of her top team. If it is appropriate for me and my staff to 

join you for that or others, feel free to do that. But that is just a 

thought there I would lay out for you. 

Senator JOHNSON. I appreciate that Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CARPER. OK. Well, so far, so good. I have said to some 

of our staff here on the Republican side and on the Democratic 

side, if you are as good as an Inspector General, as you are as a 

witness, we could be in pretty good hands. [Laughter.] 

But, I say to your sons, John and Michael and to your wife 

Monique, we have a lot of witnesses before us. They do not always 

deliver testimony that is as succinct and direct as your husband 

and father has done today, and, frankly, our questions are not always as succinct and direct, either. 

I want to walk back a little bit on the timeline that has transpired and led us to this day. This is an enormously important position, important because the Department—ten years sounds like a 

long time for it to have been around, but it is still a Department 

with growing pains and a lot of work that needs to be done. 

Having said that, this is a Department that, unfortunately, has 

a low morale. There are a lot of good people in that Department, 

a lot of good people. They do enormously important work and I 

know they have been frustrated because they went without a Secretary for about 6 months, a Senate-confirmed Secretary for almost 

6 months. They went without a Deputy Secretary for about 8 

months. And they need leadership and I think they have good leadership. This is an agency that obviously needs good leadership. 

But I want to just go back. I think it was March 1, 2011, that 

Richard Skinner, the last Senate-confirmed Inspector General for 

DHS, that is when he retired, March 1, 2011. About 3 months 

later, the President nominated a woman named Roslyn Mazer to 

be the IG. So, that is not great, but that is not bad in terms of timing. That was in July 2011. Almost a year later, June 2012, her 

nomination was withdrawn after not going anywhere for a year, 
29 

and it was clear that she could not be confirmed because of the opposition of at least one, maybe two, Members of our Committee. 

Fast forward to early January 2012, but I think when Richard 

Skinner retired, that the Deputy IG became the Acting Inspector 

General—that would have been back in March 2011—and continued as Acting IG after Roslyn Mazer’s name was withdrawn and 

continued as Acting IG until earlier that year. It became apparent 

that you cannot be the Acting IG for more than, I want to say, 

about 210 days. So, after about 210 days, the President could have 

named somebody else, did not, and so he was, by virtue of being 

Deputy IG, remained the person in charge of the agency. 

Now, so all that transpired between March 2011 and, we will 

say, the beginning of last summer, the summer of 2013. By that 

point in time, we had been more than 2 years without a Senateconfirmed IG. And then the White House vetted an unknown individual for the IG nomination and that vetting process went forward 

and the President was prepared to submit that name, and just before submitting it, the nominee and his or her family decided they 

were not going to move from California to Washington to really 

come in and try to help drain the swamp here. 

So, the White House started over again, and subsequent to that, 

about 4 or 5 months later, you were nominated to be our Inspector 

General at the Department of Homeland Security. I am really 

grateful to Dr. Coburn and the members of our staffs and our colleagues for their work and for your cooperation and the Department’s cooperation in expediting this nomination. But, it has been 

since March 1, 2011, since we had a Senate-confirmed IG in place. 

That is just totally unacceptable, almost 3 years. And, as I said 

earlier, leadership is critical in almost everything in every organization I have ever been a part of. 

Apparently, my staff tells me that we cannot—Dr. Coburn suggested to me—in a sidebar conversation earlier this morning, he 

suggested the possibility of doing a markup on this nomination off 

the floor. It would not be back here in this room in a very formal 

way, but we can still meet off the floor—we oftentimes do—in the 

Capitol and to do a nomination, really, do a short discussion and 

a vote on the nomination. I understand we cannot do that legally 

this week, is that correct? It has to be, what is it, a week that has 

to pass before we can do that. But, hopefully, we can work it out 

with Dr. Coburn and his staff and our colleagues. I would love to 

be able to do that maybe next week. 

The other thing I want to mention is the issue of how long some 

investigations take, and Dr. Coburn asked earlier that your office, 

if you are confirmed, move forward in a timely way on the investigation involving now-Deputy Secretary Mayorkas. It is important 

that we move forward apace. 

I want to just mention another investigation. I just learned about 

this one. But it goes back to the investigation of a former Special 

Counsel named Scott Bloch, which was delayed, and the complaints 

were lodged in March 2005. The investigation concluded in December 2013. On this case, it is not the OIG’s office that was the main 

culprit. Apparently, it was the Justice Department, and it was 

complicit, if you will, in the delay, and there are other reasons why 
30 

it took longer than normal. But, as I am sure you agree, 8 years, 

really unacceptable by anybody’s standards. 

So, I would keep in mind the old admonition, justice delayed is 

justice denied and just make sure that that is something that the 

folks you lead are mindful of. 

You have gotten some advice from us. We hope it is constructive. 

Friendly advice, that is for sure. Again, I go back. I would urge you 

to spend some time early on with the Secretary and Deputy Secretary at your convenience and theirs. 

I would also urge you to spend, literally within the first month, 

time with a fellow named Gene Dodaro whom you probably know. 

Gene is a wonderful leader of the Government Accountability Office, testifies here often, as does his team from GAO. They help us 

in all kinds of ways. There is a natural bond or a partnership between the IGs and the Government Accountability Office, and I 

would urge you to make it personal. You are taking up the leadership of an agency that has so many great people there. I think 

Gene Dodaro and his folks could give you some good advice and, 

frankly, be very helpful. 

The last thing I want to do, I sometimes give people a chance to 

make a—you made an opening statement. Sometimes, I give people 

a chance to make a closing statement. If you promise not to take 

long, I would like to give you that opportunity now. 

Mr. ROTH. Thank you, Senator. You will find that, if I am confirmed, conciseness is one of my hallmarks. I do want to—— 

Chairman CARPER. I have noticed that. 

Mr. ROTH. I do want to thank the Committee, yourself, the Ranking Member, all the Members of the Committee, the staff, for the 

graciousness by which they have taken the time to inform me of 

the issues. I appreciate the ability to be here today to discuss these 

very important issues. 

As I indicated in my opening, it is critically important to get this 

thing right. It is important for the American people and it is important for the American taxpayer to get this right. I have dedicated 

my entire life to public service. I think it is a public trust. My 

credibility, my personal credibility is the coin of the realm in this 

town and I have no intention, if I am confirmed, of ever soiling 

that. 

So, I would ask for your support in confirmation, and if that happens, I think I will do a good job. 

Chairman CARPER. Well, I think you just might. 

I would like to thank Mr. Roth for appearing before the Committee today. I do. I also just want to say to Monique and to John 

and to Michael, I thought he did pretty good. What do you think? 

Two thumbs up? All right. You guys, I know it is a comfort to him 

for you to have his back. All these years. 

Mr. Roth has filed responses to biographical and financial questionnaires. He has answered prehearing questions submitted by the 

Committee and our staff and he has had his financial statements 

reviewed by the Office of Government Ethics. Without objection, 

this information will be made a part of the hearing record, with the 

exception of the financial data, which are on file and available for 

public inspection in the Committee offices. 
31 

And without objection, the record will be kept open until noon tomorrow for the submission of any written questions or statements 

for the record. 

I think, with that, I think it is a wrap. So, we are going to adjourn, and again, my thanks to you and to all who have joined us. 

Mr. ROTH. Thank you. 

Chairman CARPER. The Committee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:41 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(33) 

A P P E N D I X 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 

Æ