U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

28–203 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

S. Hrg. 115–360 

NOMINATION OF JOHN M. MITNICK 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

NOMINATION OF JOHN M. MITNICK TO BE GENERAL COUNSEL, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

OCTOBER 3, 2017 

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 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin, Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

JON TESTER, Montana 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire 

KAMALA D. HARRIS, California 

CHRISTOPHER R. HIXON, Staff Director 

GABRIELLE D’ADAMO SINGER, Chief Counsel 

MARGARET E. DAUM, Minority Staff Director 

DONALD K. SHERMAN, Minority Senior Counsel 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Chief Clerk 

BONNI E. DINERSTEIN, Hearing Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Lankford .............................................................................................. 1 

Senator Peters .................................................................................................. 2 

Senator Tester .................................................................................................. 5 

Senator Hassan ................................................................................................. 12 

Senator Harris .................................................................................................. 14 

WITNESSES 

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2017 

John M. Mitnick to be General Counsel, U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 3 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 21 

Biographical and financial information .......................................................... 23 

Letter from the Office of Government Ethics ................................................. 39 

Responses to pre-hearing questions ................................................................ 44 

Responses to post-hearing questions .............................................................. 62 

Letter of support ............................................................................................... 66 

(1) 

NOMINATION OF JOHN M. MITNICK 

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2017 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a.m., in room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. James Lankford, 

presiding. 

Present: Senators Lankford, Daines, McCaskill, Tester, Peters, 

Hassan, and Harris. 

Senator LANKFORD. Good morning. Today we will consider the 

nomination of John Mitnick to be the General Counsel (GC) of the 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). 

Before we begin, especially since this is a hearing related to 

homeland security and the issues here, I would like for us to be 

able to start with a moment of silence in recognition and memory 

of those lives that were lost in Las Vegas and those that are still 

struggling in the hospital to recover, the first responders, and other 

individuals. So let us have a moment of silence. 

[Moment of silence.] 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANKFORD 

Senator LANKFORD. Thanks. Mr. Mitnick has had an impressive 

career, both the public and private sector, which I believe has prepared him well for the role which he has been nominated. 

The Committee takes these nominations very seriously. We are 

pleased to have a strong nominee in front of us. 

Mr. Mitnick is currently the Senior Vice President and General 

Counsel and Secretary of the Heritage Foundation. Previously, he 

served as Vice President and General Counsel of the Raytheon 

Company’s Technical Services. Mr. Mitnick has spent considerable 

time in public service as well, first served at the Department of 

Justice (DOJ). Later, he served in the Department of Homeland Security during its inception in 2002 and 2003 and then advanced to 

become an Associate General Counsel for DHS. He also served as 

an Associate Counsel to President George W. Bush from 2004 to 

2007. He holds bachelor degrees from Emory University and Oxford 

University and a juris doctorate from the University of Virginia 

School of Law. 

The staff interviewed Mr. Mitnick on an array of issues, and he 

has thoughtfully and competently answered each question. 

The Committee is confident Mr. Mitnick is qualified to be the 

General Counsel of the Department of Homeland Security. 
2 

I now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Peters, for his opening 

statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETERS 

Senator PETERS. Well, thank you, Chairman Lankford, and 

thank you, Mr. Mitnick, for your willingness to serve. And I know 

you have members of your family here that I am sure you will introduce at the beginning of your testimony, and I am certainly very 

pleased and glad that they are here with you today. 

Mr. Mitnick, you have been nominated for a position that can influence the actions of the Secretary and everyone at the Department of Homeland Security, and during this nomination process, it 

is my hope that you will convey the values and judgment required 

to support the DHS mission. 

First and foremost in DHS’s mission is to safeguard the American people, our homeland, and our values, and this is a critical 

juncture for the DHS, as threats to our national security abound 

from both international and domestic terrorism. And our hearts 

certainly go out to all those affected in the Las Vegas shooting this 

week, and our thanks go out to all of the first responders who are 

providing assistance to those victims. 

Millions of Americans have also been affected by the wrath of 

Mother Nature as multiple hurricanes battered several Southern 

States and island territories off the coast of Florida in September. 

Citizens in those areas, particularly in Puerto Rico and its neighboring islands, are in dire need of assistance, and with many lacking access to potable water and food, let alone electricity, these citizens depend on DHS for survival for their lives. 

Still others in our country face a threat of being deported from 

the only country that they know. Of course, I am referring to the 

Dreamers who came to the United States as children and by no 

choice of their own. 

If confirmed, Mr. Mitnick, you will be in a position to influence 

DHS response to these threats and the needs of American citizens. 

I found it comforting that you mention in your statement your support of your family that is here with you today, and I trust that 

you will see the people in need across the country as a collection 

of families very similar to your own as you work tirelessly to protect them and to provide for them. 

I will be asking you a series of questions today designed to collect 

a greater understanding of your values and fit for this very important job, and as the Ranking Member of the Federal Spending 

Oversight and Emergency Management Subcommittee, I look forward to hearing your plans for working with Congress in the oversight capacity. 

You and I both have an interest in serving the public, and it will 

be important that we respect one another’s roles in doing so. 

I further hope to get a sense of your willingness to scrutinize Executive Orders (EO) relative to DHS work and mission. The General Counsel will often find themselves as the line of defense for 

the civil liberties that our communities rely on, and it is an imperative that the individual in that role is prepared to protect our Constitution and the people of the United States without bias for a 

particular political party. 
3 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Mitnick appears in the Appendix on page 21. 

Thank you in advance for your time and candor today, and 

should you be confirmed, I look forward to working with you in protecting our great nation. 

Thank you. 

Senator LANKFORD. It is the custom of this Committee to swear 

in all witnesses that appear before them, so if you would please 

stand and raise your right hand. 

Do you swear the testimony you are about to give before this 

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

truth, so help you, God? 

Mr. MITNICK. I do. 

Senator LANKFORD. Thank you. You may be seated. 

Let the record reflect the witness answered in the affirmative. 

Mr. Mitnick, we would be glad to be able to receive your opening 

statement. If you would please also introduce your family, and let 

us get to know them a little bit better and then glad to be able to 

hear about your statement. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN M. MITNICK,1 NOMINATED TO BE GENERAL COUNSEL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. MITNICK. Thank you, Senator. 

Chairman Lankford, Ranking Member Peters, and distinguished 

Members of the Committee, it is an honor for me to appear before 

you today as the President’s nominee to be the General Counsel of 

the Department of Homeland Security. 

I am grateful to the President and Acting Secretary Elaine Duke 

for the trust and confidence they have placed in me, and I thank 

the Committee and its staff for moving forward expeditiously on 

my nomination. 

I would also like to recognize and thank the members of my family who are here today. My wonderful daughter Hadley, who is taking a few hours off from kindergarten this morning, is sitting behind me. Hadley is the light of my life, and I feel very fortunate 

that she can share this event with me and see how our government 

functions. She should have quite a story to share with her classmates and teachers when she returns to school this afternoon. 

I am grateful to my mother, Dr. Barbara Mitnick, who is also 

here. She instilled in me a love of learning early on when, after 

graduating from Cornell University and having children, she resumed her education, ultimately earning a master’s degree and a 

doctorate in the history of American art and architecture. She went 

on to a distinguished career in scholarship, teaching, and public 

service, which continues to this day. She will undoubtedly give us 

a memorable tour of the Capitol after this hearing. 

I regret that my father, Howard Mitnick, cannot be here today. 

He passed away suddenly in March 2012, and I miss his love and 

wise counsel every day. He was a lawyer’s lawyer, an astute lifelong student of business, economics, and public policy, and a true 

patriot, and I know that this would have been a proud day for him. 

I carry his memory with me in everything that I do. 
4 

At this time, I also want to remember my grandparents, Sydney 

and Nan Jacobs, and Bernard and Sophie Mitnick. All but my 

grandfather Syd were immigrants to our great country early in 

their lives, and Syd was the son of immigrants. Their stories of 

leaving their homelands to seek freedom and opportunity in America and working hard to succeed here, while typical in many ways 

of a large number of my fellow citizens, are constant inspirations 

to me. They raised families, became pillars of their communities, 

and built strong foundations for the generations to come. Theirs 

was an extraordinary and awe-inspiring generation, and I consider 

myself very fortunate to have known all of them well. 

I will always cherish the memory of the day in June 1993 when 

my grandfather Syd, who was also an attorney, at the age of 88 realized a dream that he had since I was born by moving my admission to the U.S. Supreme Court Bar in open court. 

If confirmed, it will be a privilege and an honor for me to return 

to DHS and work side by side with the Department’s more than 

240,000 dedicated professionals to safeguard the American people, 

our homeland, and our values. 

I say ‘‘return’’ because I was there at the beginning. As a detailee 

from the Department of Justice in the DHS Transition Planning 

Office, I was one of a small group of attorneys tasked with supporting the establishment of DHS in late 2002 and early 2003. I 

went on to serve as the Department’s first Associate General Counsel for Science and Technology (S&T) until I moved to the White 

House in 2004, where I served successively as Deputy Counsel of 

the Homeland Security Council and as Associate Counsel to the 

President with primary responsibility for all homeland security 

legal matters. 

Although it has been many years since I served in DHS and I 

have admired from afar the great strides made by the Department, 

I am generally aware of the ongoing challenges of integrating and 

coordinating its many disparate elements. If confirmed, I intend to 

build upon the good work of my predecessors to ensure that the 

more than 1,800 talented and dedicated attorneys in the Office of 

the General Counsel (OGC) provide sound, timely, actionable, and 

consistent legal advice throughout the Department while also ensuring the protection of the privacy and other legal rights of Americans. 

In doing so, I will employ my 28 years of experience practicing 

law at the highest levels in government and the private sector, 

which has included supervising senior attorneys and serving as an 

integral member of senior leadership teams that managed organizations ranging from several hundred to more than 9,000 employees. 

I also understand that oversight activities are essential functions 

of the Congress that are necessary for the exercise of its constitutional powers and are also vital to the proper functioning of the executive branch. 

Therefore, if confirmed, I will look forward to working with you 

and your staffs in a cooperative manner. 

Chairman Lankford, Ranking Member Peters, and distinguished 

Members of the Committee, thank you again for this opportunity 
5 

to appear before you, and I would be pleased to answer any questions. 

Senator LANKFORD. Thank you, Mr. Mitnick. 

There are three mandatory questions we ask of every candidate 

that comes before this Committee, and then after we go through 

those three quick questions, the Ranking Member and I are going 

to defer to Senator Tester to opening questions there. 

Three quick questions, I will need a yes or no answer on these. 

Is there anything that 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. MITNICK. No. 

Senator LANKFORD. 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. MITNICK. No. 

Senator LANKFORD. Do you agree, without reservation, to comply 

with any request or summons to appear and testify before any duly 

constituted committee of Congress if you are confirmed? 

Mr. MITNICK. Yes. 

Senator LANKFORD. Great. Thank you. 

Senator Tester, you are recognized. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TESTER 

Senator TESTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, 

for having this hearing. Most importantly, thank you for being here 

today, Mr. Mitnick, and thank you for your willingness to serve. 

There is always a debate in Congress about national security and 

civil liberties and where that balance needs to be. Could you give 

me your philosophy as—and do not take too much time—as concisely as you can on where you value each of those? Is one more 

important than the other? 

Mr. MITNICK. Senator, that is a critical question, and I think 

they are both critical issues. And it is important to strike that balance. 

The mission of the Department is, of course, to safeguard the 

American people and our homeland and our values, but at the 

same time, we have to do that in a way that—if I am confirmed, 

that respects privacy and legal rights of Americans. And that balance has to be struck. 

Senator TESTER. So let me give you an example. It has been a 

few years ago now. There was license plate reader technology that 

ICE was planning to expand, and I thought that there was a potential for some overstepping by the Federal Government on our civil 

liberties. And so I fought it until the Department engaged with the 

DHS Privacy Office and the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. 

Are you familiar with those two offices, first of all, DHS’s Privacy 

Office and the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties? 

Mr. MITNICK. Yes, Senator, I am familiar with them. 

Senator TESTER. And would it be your intent—let me ask it this 

way. What do you believe the roles of those two offices are in regards to your position? 
6 

Mr. MITNICK. I believe those offices have critical roles in vetting 

the actions of the Department to ensure that all of the actions of 

the Department comply with privacy laws, civil rights, and civil liberties, and if I am confirmed, I will ensure that the Office of the 

General Counsel coordinates closely with the Chief Privacy Officer 

and the head of the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties to 

carry out that vetting. And I will ensure that their views are taken 

into account. 

Senator TESTER. And what happens if your boss says, ‘‘John, you 

are way out of bounds here. We do not agree with you. We do not 

think’’—on either side, by the way, on the national security side or 

the civil liberties side. What is your response going to be? 

Mr. MITNICK. Senator, throughout my 28 years of practicing law, 

I have encountered occasionally situations in which there was lack 

of complete agreement, shall we say, between my superiors and me, 

and in all of those situations I was able to resolve those by dealing 

with the issue objectively and reasonably. And usually, an accommodation or a mutually acceptable resolution can be found. 

I can envision the situation that might need to be elevated at 

some time, but usually, at every point in my career when I have 

had one of those situations, I have been able to resolve them. 

Senator TESTER. All right. So this is an important job, your role 

as General Counsel. The decisions that, well, the U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) makes at ports of entry (POE), for example, and others have the ability to affect the law. Do you believe 

that there is legal training for the DHS employees? 

And I know that you are limited in this position, although I did 

not read your vita to find out if you had ultimate familiarity with 

the Department. So you can tell me now. Do you believe the training for DHS employees at this moment in time is right? 

Mr. MITNICK. Senator, I do not have access to all of the information about training that goes on within the Department at this 

point. I have not been there since 2004. 

If I am confirmed, I would look forward to working with my colleagues in the Office of the General Counsel and the Acting Secretary and the other senior leaders to survey the types of training 

that are provided and to ensure that they are adequate. 

Senator TESTER. Would you see it in your role to do an assessment of the employees across the components of DHS to make a 

determination whether they are properly trained in areas of legal 

matters? 

Mr. MITNICK. Yes. And that is what I had in mind in what I just 

mentioned. 

Senator TESTER. Yep. 

Mr. MITNICK. And I think that is a critical role of the Office of 

the General Counsel, and one thing that facilitates that role is that 

virtually all of the attorneys in the entire Department, including 

those in the operational components, report up to the General 

Counsel, so that provides the opportunity for the General Counsel 

to ensure that the proper legal guidance is pushed out through all 

of those elements. 

Senator TESTER. And I think that from my perspective and I get 

the impression from your perspective, too, it is a critically important component because you can have the best of intentions, and 
7 

the folks on the ground, if they do not know the legal parameters 

which they work under, could overstep them pretty quickly. 

Mr. MITNICK. I think that is absolutely critical, and it is a critical 

part of the role of the General Counsel. And if I am confirmed, I 

am going to focus very intently on that role. 

Senator TESTER. Well, I appreciate your willingness to serve. I 

can tell you, it is getting back to the first question, the question 

of civil liberties versus national security it is tough. But the truth 

is, in your position, if you understand that and you are willing to 

analyze and apply that analysis to the situations, I think we will 

be fine. 

Thank you. Thank you for your willingness to serve. 

And by the way, Hadley, I hope you have some great stories to 

tell your classes this afternoon. You will have them riveted, I am 

sure. [Laughter.] 

Mr. MITNICK. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator TESTER. Thank you. 

Senator LANKFORD. Mr. Mitnick, let me continue on the line of 

questioning that Senator Tester had on civil liberties. Let us talk 

about some of the things that have come up specifically on this 

issue. 

One of them is personal information for travelers at ports of 

entry. There has been some conversations about individuals that 

are crossing into the United States, what access the United States 

should have to—whether it be cell phones, personal information of 

an American citizen versus a person that is traveling into the country that is not an American citizen. Do you have a general perspective on how we balance out the civil liberties and protecting the 

Nation there, any kind of personal information or especially a cell 

phone or a device? 

Mr. MITNICK. Senator, that is a critical issue. I appreciate you 

raising it, and Customs and Border Protection has very broad authority, as does U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), 

in enforcing the law at the borders, vetting people and property 

coming into the United States, and of course, with the advent of 

technology, it is possible to bring an awful lot of information in, in 

a very small package. 

My understanding is that the authority is fairly broad, but it is, 

of course, critical to ensure that any searches of devices respect the 

privacy rights of Americans and also civil rights and civil liberties 

and things like attorney-client privilege. I know that the various 

bar associations have raised concerns about privileged information 

on those devices. 

So, if confirmed, I look forward to taking a close look at the operational protocols and the training provided to the CBP and ICE officers at the border to ensure that privacy and civil liberties are addressed appropriately. 

Senator LANKFORD. OK. Yes. I would just tell you that in an 

oversight area, we will come back and ask questions about that because the unique rights and privileges for Americans to be secure 

in their persons, papers, houses, and effects is a constitutionally 

protected right, and we want to make sure that we can continue 

to abide by that basic constitutional right protection for Americans 

as they travel back and forth across the border. 
8 

Talking about borders, in 2006, the Secure Fences Act was 

passed. That started a process of putting about 650 miles of fence 

on our Southern Border. Of all of that area, there is a lot of land 

acquisition as well. 334 cases were filed against the Federal Government on that. 243 of those have been resolved in an average 

time of 3.6 years. The remaining cases are still pending for an average of 8.5 years. Help me understand how you will advise DHS 

because if there will be additional areas, whether that be tethered 

drones, technology, roads to access, or areas where there will be 

fence or vehicular blocks that will be there, all of those are going 

to require land acquisitions along the border. Help me understand 

how you will advise them to keep DHS out of lengthy lawsuits, if 

at all possible, so we can actually have a secure border and not 

lengthy lawsuits. 

Mr. MITNICK. My understanding is that the Office of the General 

Counsel is involved in the exercise of eminent domain with regard 

to the building of infrastructure at the border, including the fence, 

and as a general matter, I think that the power of eminent domain 

is one of the most potentially intrusive powers that the Federal 

Government and other governments have. And it needs to be exercised judiciously, and it seems to me that it ought to be targeted. 

So if I am confirmed, one thing I would do in my role as General 

Counsel is try to ensure that the impact on private landowners is 

minimized, to the extent possible, and hopefully, that would reduce 

the amount of time needed to work out the acquisition of the various property rights. 

Senator LANKFORD. Yes. It does not help for us to be able to pass 

a bill dealing with security if the way that it is implemented creates so many lawsuits that you actually cannot get it done and we 

actually do not have real security. So that will be one of the things 

we will trust that you will stay engaged on and will help DHS as 

they work through the process. 

Two other quick questions that I want to be able to have, and 

then I want to be able to recognize Senator Peters. 

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in the 

1990s was instructed by Congress to allow not-for-profits to also be 

engaged in emergency disaster relief, so zoos, museums, whatever 

it may be, nonprofits, were allowed to be able to do that. At that 

time, FEMA determined that they would not engage with houses 

of worship or any religious institution, even if it was a nonprofit. 

Now, the law just states ‘‘nonprofits,’’ but it has been redefined 

to say ‘‘unless you are a church or a synagogue or a mosque,’’ and 

then you cannot apply for it, which is very ironic because in most 

disaster situations, those community locations that are also places 

of worship become the place for clothing and food distribution and 

Red Cross shelters and all those things. But they are not eligible 

at the end of it for emergency assistance from FEMA. 

The law does not prohibit that. It just says nonprofits. It has just 

been reinterpreted in a way by succeeding FEMA folks and by General Counsels to say we want to prohibit that. 

Then along came the Supreme Court. In the Trinity Lutheran 

case, earlier this year, they said in a 7-to-2 decision that the government cannot discriminate against a location simply because it 
9 

is a religious location for any kind of benefit. That if the benefit 

is open to all, it is truly open to all. 

So my question to you is they are going to have to reexamine this 

and to be able to determine if a church, a synagogue, or a mosque 

that was destroyed in a hurricane or in a wildfire is also open to 

emergency disaster relief or not. 

I am not asking you to tell me everything about your opinion on 

that, but this will probably land on your desk pretty quickly because, as you have probably seen in the papers, there are a few disasters that are going on right now. Help me determine how you are 

going to work through that process with them. 

Mr. MITNICK. Senator, I appreciate that question. It is a very important issue and one that I recall coming up occasionally when I 

was in the White House Counsel’s Office. I was there for a little 

over 3 years, and all of the Stafford Act emergency and major disaster declarations came through me when they came over from 

FEMA after coming from the Governors. And so I have some familiarity with that. 

I am aware, though, from that experience that houses of worship 

have been some of the most active participants in providing disaster assistance, and if I am confirmed, I look forward to working 

with the very capable attorneys at FEMA to address that issue. 

Senator LANKFORD. Yes. We look forward to that resolution being 

a clear resolution, consistent with the original law that was passed 

in the 1990s and with the Supreme Court case that has already 

come up, with Trinity Lutheran. 

One quick thing on REAL ID, there are a lot of States that are 

waiting on waiver decisions. This is one of those things that is sitting out there. That a lot of States are working through the REAL 

ID process. That some of them have worked very hard to be able 

to accomplish it. Some of them have not worked as hard, but all 

of them are interested to be able to know what waiver authorities 

will be given and the timing that those things will occur from multiple States around the country. 

I would only say to you, as you are giving counsel on the waivers 

to the Secretary and other individuals, however the decision has to 

be made on how to do a waiver and what that would be, the earlier 

those decisions can be made the better. It creates a great deal of 

uncertainty in States as they wait until the last minute to be able 

to get an answer, and so counsel at the last second is not as helpful 

as counsel a month ahead. And I am fully aware that sitting up 

here from Congress, we are the last people to be able to complain 

to someone about waiting until the last moment. I am fully aware 

of the irony of that conversation, but where it can be controlled, it 

would be helpful to be able to get decisions earlier rather than 

later on any of those waivers on REAL ID. 

Mr. MITNICK. Senator, I am very sensitive to that issue. I know 

that a lot of those extensions are expiring imminently, and then 

there is a date looming out there very soon, I believe January 22nd 

or thereabouts, 2018, at which time those secure IDs that comply 

with the Act would have to be used to access Federal facilities and 

airports. 
10 

So I am aware of the time pressure there, and if I am confirmed 

in time to address that issue, I commit to you that I will devote 

my efforts to that. 

Senator LANKFORD. That would be very helpful. 

Senator PETERS. Thank you, Chairman Lankford. 

Again, Mr. Mitnick, thank you for your willingness to serve, and 

I appreciated the opportunity to spend some time with you in my 

office as well prior to this hearing. 

Mr. Mitnick, do you believe that the DHS should use partisan political considerations as a basis for deciding how to respond to inquiries or requests for information from Members of Congress? 

Mr. MITNICK. Senator, I think that, in general, it is incumbent 

upon the officials and employees of the Department of Homeland 

Security to cooperate with Congress and to respond to requests for 

information in the context of congressional oversight. 

That said, there are some exceptions to that, like executive privilege, which is the President’s to invoke, and also there is occasionally, to my understanding, a need to prioritize responses because 

the Department has, of course, limited personnel and resources. 

But I do not think that partisan concerns should apply to the response to congressional oversight requests. 

Senator PETERS. So would you commit to respond in a timely 

manner to all congressional inquiries and requests for information 

from Members of Congress, including requests from Members in 

the Minority? 

Mr. MITNICK. Senator, I do commit to working cooperatively with 

individual Members of Congress, including Members in the Minority, to respond to requests. 

As I mentioned, there could be exceptions to that, such as executive privilege, and also there is often a need to prioritize. 

So it might be possible in many instances to comply with deadlines that are applied—in other instances, we might need to work 

cooperatively with the requesting Member to work out a schedule, 

but I certainly commit to working with all Members to satisfy their 

requests. 

Senator PETERS. Well, you have brought up prioritization a few 

times in your answer. How would you prioritize congressional inquiries? What is that priority? If you could elaborate, please? 

Mr. MITNICK. Senator, if confirmed, first and foremost, I would 

work with the Acting Secretary and the other senior leaders of the 

Department and also including the Office of Legislative Affairs to 

work cooperatively with Members. 

I think, at first, there should be an effort to work with the Congress to work out a comprehensive prioritization if there are conflicting requests and ask the Members to tell us which are the 

highest-priority requests and which are maybe a little bit lower priority. 

If the Department is put in the situation—— 

Senator PETERS. So what Members would you ask to prioritize? 

Who would make that decision here in Congress as to how you 

would prioritize? 

Mr. MITNICK. Senator, if confirmed, I envision that we would 

work with all of the Members who are seeking documents and information. 
11 

Senator PETERS. Well, every Member will want to be prioritized 

at the top. So how do you make that decision? 

Mr. MITNICK. Well, then if my first solution to that problem does 

not work, if confirmed, the Department will be left to make some 

sort of decision about prioritization, but hopefully, we will be able 

to arrive at some sort of understanding or resolution working directly with the Members. 

Senator PETERS. Are you aware of any White House instruction 

that DHS should refuse to respond to inquiries or requests for information from certain Members or certain parties within Congress? 

Mr. MITNICK. Senator, I am not aware of any direction or guidance in that regard, and in fact, I am aware that there has been 

correspondence between Senator Grassley and Mr. Don McGahn, 

the White House Counsel, relatively recently regarding the Office 

of Legal Counsel opinion that was issued on May 1, 2017. I have 

read that correspondence, and I did not see anything like that in 

there. 

Senator PETERS. Do you commit to reviewing any outstanding 

congressional inquiries and requests for information and then reporting back to this Committee on the status of those? 

Mr. MITNICK. Actually, I should note that that letter did not 

come from the White House Counsel. I believe it came from Mr. 

Marc Short, now that I recall. 

Senator PETERS. OK. 

Mr. MITNICK. So it was correspondence from Senator Grassley 

and responded to by Mr. Short, I think. I am sorry. 

Senator PETERS. So the question is, do you commit to reviewing 

any outstanding congressional inquiries and requests for information and then reporting back to this Committee on the status of 

those requests, if confirmed? 

Mr. MITNICK. Senator, I commit, if confirmed, to work cooperatively with all Members of Congress to satisfy their requests for 

documents and information. 

Senator PETERS. As you know, the DHS has the largest law enforcement force in the country, and if confirmed, you would certainly play a very critical role in reviewing the guidance that is put 

out to the agency, across the entire agency. What would you do to 

ensure that there is consistent guidance made that makes it out, 

actually makes it out to the field to the men and women who are 

serving? 

We are hearing that guidance that may be coming from Washington is not getting to the field, and that the different field offices 

interpret and follow guidance differently, which is certainly unacceptable, and I assume that is something you would want to pick 

up and I would love to hear your comments as to how you are going 

to make sure that it is done in a proper and consistent manner. 

Mr. MITNICK. Senator, not being at the Department now, I am 

not aware of those specific problems, but as I mentioned in my 

opening statement, I think that it is a critical tool of the General 

Counsel that nearly all of the attorneys in the Department, including those at the operational components, report up to the General 

Counsel. And that provides a very important opportunity to ensure 

that not only sound, timely, and actionable advice is pushed out to 
12 

all of the employees of the Department, to ensure that the Department complies with applicable law, but also provides an opportunity to ensure consistency of legal advice throughout the Department. 

So I would work with my colleagues who are actually embedded 

in the operational components of the Department to ensure that 

the advice is not only consistent, but it is also provided directly to 

the very dedicated people who work at DHS who need it in their 

day-to-day operation. 

Senator PETERS. Mr. Mitnick, do you believe that religion should 

be a basis for a U.S. counterterrorism or law enforcement policy, 

particularly as it relates to the targeting of individuals with ancestry from Muslim-majority countries? 

Mr. MITNICK. Senator, I do not believe that one’s personal religious beliefs should be considered in that context, and so I think 

that our approach to counterterrorism should be based on assessment of risk. 

Senator PETERS. So how do you reconcile your belief with the 

travel ban Executive Orders that have been put forward? 

Mr. MITNICK. Senator, I have read the Executive Orders that you 

mention, including the one, the proclamation, that was issued by 

the President on September 24th, I believe, and I do not see any 

reference in those orders to the religious background of anyone who 

might be affected by those orders. They are directed at specific 

countries based on specific objective security criteria. 

Senator PETERS. Well, what would you do if you found a policy 

to be inconsistent with current law and inconsistent with the belief 

that you just expressed to me? 

Mr. MITNICK. Senator, it would depend, I believe, where the policy originated. With regard to Presidential guidance, a Presidential 

policy, I would hope to be—if confirmed—a participant in the Administration’s policy development and implementation process, 

with which I am very familiar from my time in the White House, 

and participate in that to ensure that issues like that are addressed in the policy development process. 

If it is something within the Department alone, if I am confirmed 

as General Counsel, I would hope that I would have some direct 

impact in giving advice on how those policies should be crafted and 

contoured in order to avoid legal issues. 

Senator PETERS. Thank you. 

Senator LANKFORD. Senator Hassan. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HASSAN 

Senator HASSAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good morning, Mr. Mitnick. It is nice to see you again, and I 

note, among others, that there is a particularly young family member in the audience, and I just wanted to say good morning, and 

thank you very much for sharing. I was not here earlier. Daughter? 

Father? 

Mr. MITNICK. Yes. This is my daughter, Hadley. 

Senator HASSAN. OK. So thank you for sharing your dad with the 

rest of us. We are very grateful he is willing to serve. 

I wanted to ask you, Mr. Mitnick, about a topic that you and I 

discussed when we met in my office, which is domestic terrorism. 
13 

1The hearing referenced is HSGAC’s September 27, 2017, hearing ‘‘Threats to the Homeland’’. 

We have been struggling, it seems to me, with what constitutes 

domestic terrorism versus international terrorism. If an American 

on American soil cites a thought or ideology that originated outside 

of the United States but acts inside the United States, for instance, 

is that domestic or international terrorism? So do you have a definition, a working definition, of what distinguishes the two? 

Mr. MITNICK. Senator, that is a very important issue, and I believe it was one that was discussed at the hearing last Wednesday—— 

Senator HASSAN. Yes. 

Mr. MITNICK [continuing]. Which involved Acting Secretary 

Duke—— 

Senator HASSAN. Right. 

Mr. MITNICK [continuing]. And the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Christopher Wray.1

I would defer to Director Wray, of course, on that issue, and I 

believe that, notwithstanding the definitional issue, his view was 

that there are more than adequate authorities for the FBI to go 

after domestic terrorists under current law. 

Senator HASSAN. Well, but I think that kind of begs the question 

whether the Department of Homeland Security has a role to play 

in countering efforts by domestic terrorists to launch terrorist attacks in the United States. Do you think it does? 

Mr. MITNICK. Senator, I do believe that the Department has a 

very critical role to play, and for example, I am aware that the Department has a countering violent extremism (CVE) effort that is 

fairly robust. I think the funding is relatively limited but certainly 

could be expanded. 

Senator HASSAN. In your view, is it just a funding issue, or are 

there other limitations to the Department’s role in stopping domestic terrorism? 

Mr. MITNICK. Senator, not being at the Department now, I am 

not aware of any deficiency in legal authorities that the Department has with regard to addressing domestic terrorism within the 

scope of its mission and its role. 

Senator HASSAN. Right. 

Mr. MITNICK. And if I am confirmed, I certainly would be very 

interested in becoming more knowledgeable on that and addressing 

any possible deficiencies. 

Senator HASSAN. Well, I think one of the things that we began 

to talk about last week with Director Wray was the issue that 

there is not actually a criminal offense of domestic terrorism the 

way there is international terrorism, and it does seem to me that 

this is squarely within the Department’s area and scope of responsibility and should be a part of its jurisdiction. Domestic terror 

threats are considerable, and we have seen a growing presence in 

our country. 

So I would urge you, should you be confirmed, to be looking at 

this issue with the Department’s leadership because I think we 

want to make sure that Americans are safe from both domestic and 

international terrorism, and that the Department, with all of its resources and expertise—in concert, obviously, with law enforcement, 
14 

which is the way you operate, anyway—could be taking on a greater role, and I think needs to be paying more attention to the issue 

of domestic terrorism. So I would look forward to working with you 

on that. 

Mr. MITNICK. Senator, I appreciate that, and I look forward to 

working with you as well. 

My understanding is that there is very robust information sharing going on between the FBI and DHS and other law enforcement 

entities and the intelligence community (IC). 

My understanding is also, though, that the Homeland Security 

Act specifically accords the law enforcement function with regard 

to terrorism to the Justice Department and the FBI. So, within 

those constraints, I certainly look forward to working with you if 

I am confirmed to address that issue. 

Senator HASSAN. Well, and I would look forward to hearing from 

you if, as you identify those constraints or others, there are ways 

that if we all think it makes sense, we could change some of those 

constraints. And I think we are at a critical juncture. I think we 

need to be doing more on the domestic terrorism front. I think we 

can do that without compromising our efforts on the international 

terrorism front, but we should always be looking for ways to improve and strengthen, and so I look forward to getting your best 

assessment, should you be confirmed, about ways we can make 

sure the Department has not only the resources it needs but the 

authority it needs. 

Thank you. 

Mr. MITNICK. Thank you. 

Senator HASSAN. And I yield the rest of my time. 

Senator LANKFORD. Thank you. Senator Harris. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARRIS 

Senator HARRIS. Thank you. Good morning. 

Mr. MITNICK. Good morning. 

Senator HARRIS. As you know, the Deferred Action for Childhood 

Arrivals (DACA) program was created over 5 years ago, and it has 

allowed thousands upon hundreds of thousands of hardworking 

young people to have status that defers their deportation, if they 

have submitted information about themselves and undergone an 

analysis and an investigation about who they are, their background, are they productive, have they committed a crime or not. 

And if they clear that vetting, then they received DACA status. 

You are familiar with the DACA program, I take it? 

Mr. MITNICK. Yes, Senator. 

Senator HARRIS. OK. And you are also aware, then, that on September 5th, without any administrative notice, the Attorney General (AG) of the United States indicated that the DACA program 

was being terminated? 

Mr. MITNICK. I am aware that it was rescinded and it is being 

wound down. Yes, Senator. 

Senator HARRIS. What do you believe is the significance of the 

announcement, given that there was no administrative notice? 

Mr. MITNICK. Senator, not being at the Department now, I do not 

have access to the information that was considered and the legal 

advice that was given with regard to, for example, whether the Ad-
15 

ministrative Procedure Act (APA) or other requirements were applicable or not. 

I am familiar with what was announced publicly, however. 

Senator HARRIS. Those of the DACA recipients that their DACA 

status was set to expire by March 5th were given 30 days to renew, 

to apply for renewal of their status. 

I am asking you this question now as a colleague, a professional 

in the law. Part of our responsibility, especially as public lawyers 

serving the public interest and with the public trust, is to concern 

ourselves with fairness. Would you agree with that? 

Mr. MITNICK. I believe it is incumbent upon any public servant 

and particularly an attorney to act with fairness. 

Senator HARRIS. So these young people were given 30 days to 

renew their status, and within that 30 days, they would then, in 

order to comply with the renewal process, have to gather a lot of 

documentation and come up with $495. And I am sure you know 

Federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour, so it is a lot of money. 

What is your perspective on the fairness of that, and do you have 

any perspective on whether or not it would be fair to extend that 

deadline to give those young people more time to comply with the 

requirement that they renew their status? 

Mr. MITNICK. Senator, not being at the Department now, I do not 

know all of the constraints and all of the issues that were considered by the leadership, and it would be inappropriate, I think, for 

me to express an opinion or second-guess the leadership of the Department, particularly the Acting Secretary, in the decision that 

was made. 

I do understand that the Attorney General sent a letter to the 

Acting Secretary, I believe, on September 4th expressing his opinion that the DACA program, as initiated in 2012, is unconstitutional, and so I do appreciate the fact that the Department’s leadership was operating under some significant constraints in this regard. 

But not being there, I do not know all of the details. 

Senator HARRIS. And I appreciate your point. 

The point of my question is to also just have some sense of what 

you believe your role would be, if confirmed, and what your role 

and responsibility would be to advise your client on what is not 

only legally, but based on black-letter law, appropriate and constitutional, but also what is fair in terms of the Administration of 

the great powers of that Department. 

So, for example, another related issue is that Acting Secretary 

Duke was here recently and testified that the DACA grantees 

would need to renew their status by October 5th but were never 

individually notified of the change in the policy. So there were 

press conferences, but there was never any direct notification to 

DACA recipients that the program would be terminated and they 

had one month to renew their status. What is your perspective on 

the fairness of that process? 

Mr. MITNICK. Senator, let me say that my personal belief is that 

the DACA recipients are among the most sympathetic of those who 

are in this country without legal status, and I believe that my role 

as an attorney transcends black-letter law, as you said, although 

a distinction must be drawn. In the private sector, I am accus-
16 

tomed to distinguishing between legal issues and business 

issues—— 

Senator HARRIS. Sure. 

Mr. MITNICK [continuing]. And the analog to that in government 

would be a distinction between legal issues and policy issues, and 

if I am confirmed, I would hope to have a seat at the table with 

the other senior leaders of the Department and express my views 

not only on black-letter law but also on fairness and compassion 

and acting as public servants. 

Again, I do not know the details or the specific constraints under 

which the Department was operating in this regard, so I cannot 

really express an opinion about the specific issue you raised. 

Senator HARRIS. I appreciate your perspective and, in particular, 

your understanding of the responsibility we all have to look at the 

broad picture and not just the technical component of the work 

that we do, so thank you for that. 

And then I have a question about the responsibilities which you 

would undertake, if confirmed, which are, quote, ‘‘protecting the 

rights and liberties of any Americans who come into contact with 

the Department.’’ 

And increased enforcement and border operations by ICE and 

CBP have led to growing reports of racial profiling, particularly of 

Latinos. What specifically would you do to address implicit bias 

and racial profiling where and when it exists? 

Mr. MITNICK. Senator, I think it is absolutely critical that the 

Department of Homeland Security carry out all of its functions in 

strict compliance with privacy rights and other rights of Americans, including civil liberties, and if I am confirmed, I look forward 

to reviewing all of the guidance, including protocols and operational 

legal guidance provided to the operational components, including 

specifically CBP and ICE and particularly those who have direct 

contact with the American people on a daily basis to ensure that 

all of their actions and activities comply with those rights. 

Senator HARRIS. And I just have one more question. 

Mr. MITNICK. And by the way I think it is critical that I work 

with the Chief Privacy Officer and the head of the Office of Civil 

Rights and Civil Liberties in that regard. 

Senator HARRIS. I agree. 

And one more question which is, will you commit to this Committee that, if confirmed, you will specifically take a look at the 

best practices around training law enforcement on implicit bias and 

procedural justice, as the FBI has done that, for example, as another Federal agency, and commit that you will urge that all of the 

members of the Department and particularly those in the field be 

trained on implicit bias and procedural justice? 

Mr. MITNICK. Senator, if confirmed, I will look at that policy and 

others and ensure to the extent I can within my authority as General Counsel of the Department that proper guidance is given and 

that proper training is given on that guidance, but of course, I will 

have to work with the heads of those components and the other 

senior leaders in that regard. 

Senator HARRIS. Thank you. 

Senator LANKFORD. Thanks, Senator Harris. 
17 

I have a few more questions to be able to wrap up, and then we 

will give you an opportunity to make any final statements, if you 

choose to make those. 

Will you cooperate with the Inspectors General (IGs) as they 

work with each individual area of DHS and to make sure that they 

have access to the information that they need access to? 

Mr. MITNICK. Senator, I look forward, if confirmed, to working 

cooperatively with the Inspector General in the Department. I recognize that the Inspector General has a critical role in audits and 

investigations under the Inspector General Act and also the relevant provisions of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, and so I 

would look forward to working with the Inspector General in a collegial and cooperative manner and, within the scope of my authority as General Counsel, ensure that the Inspector General has all 

of the resources needed to accomplish the Inspector General’s function. 

I am aware that there is existing guidance within the Department that I think was issued by the Secretary back in 2008 that 

provides for cooperation and provision of documents and information to the Inspector General. So, if confirmed, I look forward to 

looking at that, seeing if maybe it needs to be updated, and working with the Inspector General in that regard. 

Senator LANKFORD. Terrific. Yes. We are on the same team here, 

and what I do not want to have is the situation where the Inspector General is seen as an adversarial role. We are all trying to deal 

with all issues there, whether it be whistleblower protection or 

whether that be waste in government or whether that be fraud 

within an entity. I never want to see one of our agencies try to protect themselves by blocking out the Inspector General from their 

investigation. 

DHS has a very unique role in our Federal Government in working with States for voting and to be able to help those States in 

their voting. One of the key criteria, though, is States run their 

voting systems, not the Federal Government. Any counsel that you 

would give initially or any concerns that you have to make sure 

that States are protected to be able to make decisions that they 

have to make as States without the Federal Government trying to 

overstep its clear boundaries there? 

Mr. MITNICK. Senator, that is a critical issue. I appreciate you 

raising it, and I am acutely aware that the elections in 2018 are 

looming and there is a need to be proactive, if I am confirmed. 

My understanding, Senator, is that the election infrastructure— 

although as you said, it is primarily the responsibility of State and 

local governments—was added as an element of critical infrastructure by the Department, and that the Department, therefore, is 

ready, willing, and able, to my understanding, to work with State 

and local governments who request assistance, particularly in addressing possible cybersecurity threats that could compromise the 

election system and election technology. 

So if I am confirmed, I would look forward to working with Acting Secretary Duke and other senior leaders in the Department to 

ensure that that assistance is lawfully provided. 

Senator LANKFORD. Yes. We look forward to that as well. 

Cybersecurity is also an area that is squarely within DHS. It is 
18 

also one of the thorniest issues of the law because everywhere 

where you get into the leading edge of technology, law and policy 

tend to lag behind on it. Again, this goes back to one of our earlier 

questions about Americans being secure in their houses, papers, 

persons, and effects. It is a basic constitutional protection, but you 

get into the area of cybersecurity, and attacks both from outside 

the United States and within the United States, is a very critical 

issue for us in the long term in just our economic security as a nation as well as our private information and security of that. 

Any insight that you can give us into your legal mindset on 

cybersecurity issues and any boundaries that you could lay out in 

front of us? 

Mr. MITNICK. Senator, my personal opinion is that cybersecurity 

is one of the greatest threats that we face as a Nation, and it is 

a critical role of the Department of Homeland Security. 

I was involved in cybersecurity work when I worked in the White 

House, including crafting Presidential direction. Of course, that 

was 10 or 11 years ago. So, if confirmed, I look forward to becoming 

more knowledgeable about exactly what the Department’s activities 

are right now. 

I do know that the Department has a critical role in safeguarding 

the dot-gov domain and has very critical authorities there and has 

regulatory authority in that regard, and I understand that the Department has an absolutely critical role in working with the private 

sector and State and local governments on information sharing 

with regard to cybersecurity. And my understanding is there is liability protection that Congress enacted, which also is assisting 

now in the information sharing back and forth between the Department and the private sector, but I look forward to working on that 

issue, if I am confirmed. 

Senator LANKFORD. Great. Terrific. 

Senator Harris, do you have any final questions? 

Senator HARRIS. No, thank you. 

Senator LANKFORD. I have one final question on this, and it is 

extremely important. I saw in your background, you are a baseball 

fan. So Indians or Dodgers in the World Series? Who do you call? 

Are they both there and if they are there, or if you have another 

option who is in the World Series and who wins it? 

Senator HARRIS. The Giants. [Laughter.] 

Senator LANKFORD. You can pick another option, if you choose to. 

I know this is the toughest question of the day. 

Mr. MITNICK. Well, being in Washington and having lived here 

for 16 years, I have been transformed into a Nationals fan. So I do 

not want to say anything that might prejudice—not that my statements would have any bearing on their success in the post season, 

but I do not want to say anything that would have a negative impact in any way on the Nationals and their prospects. 

I have to admit that I was very impressed by that run that the 

Dodgers went on this season until they came back down to earth, 

although they still ended up pretty well. It looked to me like they 

were going to set a record for number of wins in a regular season, 

but they are a formidable team. 

Senator LANKFORD. Pretty remarkable. 
19 

1The information of Mr. Mitnick appears in the Appendix on page 23. 

Mr. MITNICK. I should mention the Indians had a pretty good 

run. 

Senator LANKFORD. Yes, they had a pretty good run as well. 

Mr. MITNICK. Yes. 

Senator LANKFORD. Any other final statements that you want to 

make before this Committee? 

Mr. MITNICK. Senator, I do not have any prepared remarks, but 

I do want to thank you for considering my nomination and the rest 

of the distinguished Members of this Committee and also Ranking 

Member Peters for being here today and meeting with me yesterday. 

I have enjoyed this process, and if confirmed, I look forward to 

working cooperatively with all of the Members of this Committee 

and other Members of Congress. 

Senator LANKFORD. Terrific. Yes. Thank you for making yourself 

available for both meeting with me and the office and just going 

through so many questions with some of the other Members on the 

dais as well and to be able to go through those things in our office, 

in that setting, so we can go into greater depth on these issues. 

We do need a strong counsel there, and so look forward to having 

a good, strong counsel in that spot because we need decisions. We 

need them made rapidly but accurately as well through the process. 

Just to be able to make this final closing statement, the nominee 

has made financial disclosures and provided responses to biographical and prehearing questions submitted by the Committee. 

Without objection, this information will be made 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.1

The hearing record will remain open until noon tomorrow, October the 4th, for the submission of statements and questions for the 

record. However, if Members wish to receive responses to their 

questions from Mr. Mitnick prior to the Committee vote tomorrow, 

they must submit questions for the record by 5 p.m. today. 

Thank you again, Mr. Mitnick, for your work and for being here 

and going through this process. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 10:31 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(21) 

A P P E N D I X 
22 

fortunate to have known all of them well. I will always cherish the memory of the day in June 

1993 when my grandfather Syd, who was also an attorney, at the age of 88 realized a dream that 

he had since I was born by moving my admission to the U.S. Supreme Court Bar in open court. 

If confirmed, it will be a privilege and an honor for me to return to DHS and work side-by-side 

with the Department's more than 240,000 dedicated professionals to safeguard the American 

people, our homeland, and our values. I say "return" because I was there at the beginning; as a 

detailee from the Department of Justice in the DHS Transition Planning Office, I was one of a 

small group of attorneys tasked with supporting the establishment of DHS in late 2002 and early 

2003. I went on to serve as the Department's first Associate General Counsel for Science and 

Technology until I moved to the White House in 2004, where I served successively as Deputy 

Counsel ofthe Homeland Security Council and as Associate Counsel to the President with 

primary responsibility for all homeland security legal matters. 

Although it has been many years since I served in DHS, and I have admired from afar the great 

strides made by the Department, I am generally aware of the ongoing challenges of integrating 

and coordinating its many disparate elements. If confirmed, I intend to build upon the good 

work of my predecessors to ensure that the more than l ,800 talented and dedicated attorneys in 

the Office of the General Counsel provide sound, timely, actionable, and consistent legal advice 

throughout the Department while also ensuring the protection of the privacy and other legal 

rights of Americans. In doing so, I will employ my 28 years of experience practicing law at the 

highest levels in government and the private sector, which has included supervising senior 

attorneys and serving as an integral member of senior leadership teams that managed 

organizations ranging from several hundred to more than 9,000 employees. 

I also understand that oversight activities are essential functions of the Congress that are 

necessary for the exercise of its constitutional powers, and are also vital to the proper functioning 

of the executive branch. Therefore, if confirmed, I will look forward to working with you and 

your staffs in a cooperative manner. 

Chairman Lankford, Ranking Member Peters, and distinguished Members of the Committee, 

thank you again for this opportunity to appear before you, and I would be pleased to answer any 

questions. 

2 
23 

HSGAC BIOGRAPHICAL QUESTIONS FOR 

EXECUTIVE NOMINEES REDACTED 

1. Basic Biographical Information 

Please provide the following information. 

1 
24 

Married 

0 

Separated Annulled 

2. Education 

List aU post-secondary schools attended. 

University 

2 

Divorced 

~ 

511984 c 

Widowed 

0 
25 

3. Employment 

(A) List all of your employment activities, including unemployment and self-employment. If 

the employment activity was military duty, list separate employment activity periods to show 

each change of military duty station. Do not list employment before your 18th birthday unless 

to provide a minimum of two years of employment history. 

Unemployment N/A 

Non-Govemment Raytheon 

Employment Company/Raythe 

on Technical 

Services Secretary 

LLC 

Federal Washin 

Employment 8/2004 

Other Federal 

Employment 

Other Federal 

Employment of Justice Assistant gton, 

(Detailed to U.S. Attorney DC 

Department of General, 

Homeland Antitrust 

Security Division 

(including 

Transition 

3 
26 

from 1112002 to 

10/2003) 

Non-Govemment Kilpatrick Partner Atlanta, ... Est 

Employment Townsend& GA 10/1988 0 8/2001 0 

Stockton LLP1 

Non-Government MedSafe President Atlanta, ••• "' 

Employment Technologies GA 9/1997 "' 8/2001 0 

L.L.C. 

Non-Government Georgia State Adjunct Atlanta, • •• Est 

Employment University Professor of GA 8/1993 "' 511996 "' 

College of Law Law 

Non-Govemment University of Research Charlot &t Est 

Employment Virginia School Assistant tesville, 8/1987 ol 5/1988 "' 

of Law VA 

Non-Government Kilpatrick Summer Atlanta, ... "'' 

Employment Townsend& Associate GA 6/1987 "' 8/1987 "' 

Stockton LLP 

Non-Government Condon& Summer New ••• £$t 

Employment Forsyth Associate York, 8/1986 -/ 9/1986 "' 

NY 

Non-Government Kilpatrick Summer Atlanta, F.5t ... Employment Townsend& Associate GA 6/1986 -/ 811986 "' 

Stockton LLP 

Non-Government Condon& Summer New Est Est 

Employment Forsyth Associate York, 5/1985 "' 811985 "' 

NY 

Non-Government Emory University Resident Atlanta, Est ••• 

Employment Advisor GA 8/1983 t'; 5/1984 0 

Non-Government Pressure Concrete project South ... Est 

Employment and Grouting assistant Orange, 5/1982 "' 811982 "' 

NJ 

Non-Govemment Pressure Concrete project South Est •.. 

Employment and Grouting assistant Orange, 5/1981 "' 8/1981 -/ 

NJ 

Non-Govemment Rosedale Manor maintenance Madiso Est Est 

Employment Apartments n,NJ 611980 -/ 8/1980 ., 

Non-Government Roy Rogers cook Millbur ••• "' Employment n, NJ 4/1980 -/ 6/1980 ., 

'This is the present name of the law firm. 

4 
27 

(B) List any advisory, consultative, honorary or other part-time service or positions with 

federal, state, or local governments, not listed elsewhere. 

None. 

4. Potential Conflict oflnterest 

(A) Describe any business relationship, dealing or financial transaction which you have had 

during the last 10 years, whether for yourself, on behalf of a client, or acting as an agent, that 

could in any way constitute or result in a possible conflict of interest in the position to which 

you have been nominated. 

In connection with the nomination process, I have consulted with the Office of Government Ethics 

and the Department of Homeland Security's Designated Agency Ethics Official to identify any 

potential conflicts of interest. Any potential conflicts of interest will be resolved in accordance with 

the terms of an ethics agreement that I have signed and transmitted to the Department's Designated 

Agency Ethics Official, which has been provided to this Committee. I am not aware of any other 

potential conflicts of interest 

(B) Describe any activity during the past 10 years in which yon have engaged for the purpose 

of directly or indirectly influencing the passage, defeat or modification of any legislation or 

affecting the administration or execution of law or public policy, other than while in a federal 

government capacity. 

None. 

5. Honors and Awards 

List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary degrees, civilian service citations, military medals, 

academic or professional honors, honorary society memberships and any other special 

recognition for outstanding service or achievement. 

B.A., History and Political Science, summa cum laude, Emory University, 1984 

Phi Beta Kappa 

Omicron Delta Kappa 

Phi Alpha Theta 

Pi Sigma Alpha 

Mortar Board 

5 
28 

6. Memberships 

List all memberships that you have held in professional, social, business, fraternal, scholarly, 

civic, or charitable organizations in the last 10 years. 

Unless relevant to your nomination, you do NOT need to include memberships in charitable 

organizations available to the public as a result of a tax deductible donation of $1,000 or less, 

Parent-Teacher Associations or other organizations connected to schools attended by your 

children, athletic clubs or teams, automobile support organizations (such as AAA), discounts 

clubs (such as Groupon or Sam's Club), or affinity memberships/consumer clubs (such as 

frequent flyer memberships). 

Merton College Charitable 

Corporation 

Valaururn, Inc. 

Valaurum, Inc. 

University of Law 

School Alumni Council 

The Federalist Society 

4/2012 to present 

3/20 16 to present 

7/2015 to 3/2016 

7/2017 to present 

1987 to present 

7. Political Activity 

Member, Board of Trustees 

Member, Board 

Member, Board of Advisors 

Member 

Member 

(A) Have you ever been a candidate for or been elected or appointed to a political office? 

Yes. 

6 
29 

Member, United States House of 

Representatives, Georgia 41

h District 

2000 

1996 

N/A 

N/A 

(B) List any offices held in or services rendered to a political party or election committee 

during the last ten years that you have not listed elsewhere. 

(C) Itemize all individual political contributions of $200 or more that you have made in the 

past five years to any individual, campaign organization, political party, political action 

committee, or similar entity. Please list each individual contribution and not the total amount 

contributed to the person or entity during the year. 

Friends of Kelly Ayotte Inc. $225.00 2016 

Portman for Senate $200.00 2016 

7 
30 

Rand Paul for US Senate $201.60 2016 

Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. $500.00 2016 

George Allen for US Senate $500.00 2012 

Romney for President, Inc. $1,000 2012 

Romney Victory, Inc. $1,000 2012 

Ted Cruz for Senate $200.00 2012 

8. Publications and Speeches 

(A) List the titles, publishers and dates of books, articles, reports or other published materials 

that you have written, including articles published on the Internet. Please provide the 

Committee with copies of all listed publications. In lieu of hard copies, electronic copies can be 

provided via e-mail or other digital format. 

teambaseballs.com website 

Team Baseball" 

"Prices and Valuation" teambaseballs.com website 

"Signature 

Team Baseballs: Artifacts Artifact Publishing 

the Game (co-authored) 

"Constitutional Theory in the Emory Law Journal 

Liberal Tradition Versus the 

8 

9/4/2011 

8/22/2010 

712010 

Summer 
31 

Republican Ideal" (coauthored) 

"From Neighbor-Witness to American Journal of Legal 7/1988 

Judge of Proofs: The History 

Transformation of the English 

Civil Juror" 

Various Music Reviews and The Emory Wheel and The !983 to 1986 

Articles Cavalier Daily 

(B) List any formal speeches you have delivered during the last five years and provide the 

Committee with copies of those speeches relevant to the position for which you have been 

nominated. Include any testimony to Congress or any other legislative or administrative body. 

These items can be provided electronically via e-mail or other digital format. 

None. 

(C) List all speeches and testimony you have delivered in the past ten years, except for those 

the text of which you arc providing to the Committee. 

Act (Panel 

Discussion) 

9 

2/26/2009 

10/28/2008 
32 

9. Criminal History 

Since (and including) your l81

h birthday, has any of the following happened? 

Have you been issued a summons, citation, or ticket to appear in court in a criminal proceeding against you? 

(Exclude citations involving traffic infractions where the fine was less than $300 and did not include alcohol or 

drugs.) No. 

Have you been arrested by any police officer, sheriff. marshal or any other type oflaw enforcement official? No. 

Have you been charged, convicted, or sentenced of a crime in any court? No. 

Have you been or are you currently on probation or parole? No. 

Are you currently on trial or awaiting a trial on criminal charges? No. 

To your knowledge, have you ever been the subject ortarget of a federal, state or local criminal investigation? No. 

If the answer to any of the questions above is yes, please answer the questions below for each 

criminal event (citation, arrest, investigation, etc.). If the event was an investigation, where 

the question below asks for information about the offense, please offer information about the 

offense under investigation (if known). 

N/A 

A) Date of offense: 

a. Is this an estimate (Yes/No): 

B) Description of the specific nature of the offense: 

C) Did the offense involve any of the following? 

I) Domestic violence or a crime of violence (such as battery or assault) against your child, dependent, 

cohabitan~ spouse, former spouse, or someone with whom you share a child in common: Yes 1 No 

2) Firearms or explosives: Yes I No 

3) Alcohol or drugs: Yes I No 

D) Location where the offense occurred (city, county, state, zip code, country): 

E) Were you arrested, summoned, cited or did you receive a ticket to appear as a result of this offense by any police 

officer, sheriff, marshal or any other type oflaw enforcement official; Yes I No 

I) Name of the law enforcement agency that arrested/cited/summoned you: 

2) Location of the law enforcement agency {city, county, state, zip code, country): 

F) As a result of this offense were you charged, convicted, currently awaiting trial, and/or ordered to appear in court in 

a criminal proceeding against you: Yes I No 

I) If yes, provide the name of the court and the location of the court (city, county, state, zip code, country): 

10 
33 

2) If yes, provide all the charges brought against you for this offense, and the outcome of each charged 

offense (such as found guilty, found not-guilty, charge dropped or "nolle pros," etc). If you were fuund 

guilty of or pleaded guilty to a lesser offense, Jist separately both the original charge and the lesser 

offense: 

3) If no, provide explanation: 

G) Were you sentenced as a result of this offense: Yes/ No 

H) Provide a description of the sentence: 

I) Were you sentenced to imprisonment for a term exceeding one year: Yes I No 

J) Were you incarcerated as a result of that sentence for not less than one year: Yes I No 

K) If the conviction resulted in imprisonment, provide the dates that you actually were incarcerated: 

L) If conviction resulted in probation or parole, provide the dates of probation or parole: 

M) Are you currently on trial, awaiting a trial, or awaiting sentencing on criminal charges for this offense: Yes I No 

N) Provide explanation: 

10. Civil Litigation and Administrative or Legislative Proceedings 

(A) Since (and including) your 18th birthday, have you been a party to any public record civil 

court action or administrative or legislative proceeding of any kind that resulted in (1) a 

finding of wrongdoing against you, or (2) a settlement agreement for you, or some other 

person or entity, to make a payment to settle allegations against you, or for you to take, or 

refrain from taking, some action. Do NOT include small claims proceedings. 

In the following actions there was neither a finding of wrongdoing against me, nor any allegation 

against me, nor any settlement requiring me or any other person or entity to make a payment to 

settle an allegation against me. The following actions are listed solely because the referenced 

settlement requires me to take "some action" (mainly payments that are typical in such settlements). 

11 
34 

Domestic 

Relations 

District 

Court 

Carol Deane B. 

Mitnick 

agreement of the 

pruties with a 

view to litigating 

the issues in the 

action filed 

9/2016 (above) 

(B) In addition to those listed above, have you or any business of which you were an officer, 

director or owner ever been involved as a party of interest in any administrative agency 

proceeding or civil litigation? Please identify and provide details for any proceedings or civil 

litigation that involve actions taken or omitted by you, or alleged to have been taken or 

omitted by you, while serving in your official capacity. 

District 

Court, 

S.D. 

Indiana 

Syringe 

Development 

Partners L.L. C. 

andMedSafe 

Teclmologies 

L.L.C. v. New 

12 
35 

! Technology Inc. 

and NMT Group 

PLC 

(C) For responses to the previous question, please identify and provide details for any 

proceedings or civil litigation that involve actions taken or omitted by yon, or alleged to have 

been taken or omitted by you, while serving in your official capacity. 

11. Breach of Professional Ethics 

(A) Have you ever been disciplined or cited for a breach of ethics or unprofessional conduct 

by, or been the subjeet of a complaint to, any eourt, administrative agency, professional 

association, disciplinary committee, or other professional group? Exclude cases and 

proceedings already listed. 

No. 

(B) Have you ever been fired from a job, quit a job after being told you would be fired, left a 

job by mutual agreement following charges or allegations of misconduct, left a job by mutual 

agreement following notice of unsatisfactory performance, or received a written warning, 

been officially reprimanded, suspended, or disciplined for misconduct in the workplace, such 

as violation of a security poliey? 

No. 

12. Tax Compliance 

(This information will not be published in the record of the hearing on your nomination, but it 

will be retained in the Committee's fdes and will be available for public inspection.) 

REDACTED 
36 

REDACTED 

13. Lobbying 

In the past ten years, have you registered as a lobbyist? If so, please indicate the state, 

federal, or local bodies with which you have registered (e.g., House, Senate, California 

Secretary of State). 

No. 

14 
37 

14. Outside Positions 

V'See OGE Form 278. (If, for your nomination, you have completed an OGE Form 278 Executive 

Branch Personnel Public Financial Disclosure Report, you may check the box here to complete this 

section and then proceed to the next section.) 

15. Agreements or Arrangements 

V'See OGE Form 278. (If, for your nomination, you have completed an OGE Form 278 Executive 

Branch Personnel Public Financial Disclosure Report, you may check the box here to complete this 

section and then proceed to the next section.) 

16. Additional Financial Data 

All information requested under this beading must be provided for yourself, your spouse, and 

your dependents. (This information will not be published in the record of the hearing on your 

nomination, but it will be retained in the Committee's files and will be available for public 

inspection.) 

REDACTED 
38 

SIGNATURE AND DATE 

I hereby state that I have read the foregoing Statement on Biographical and Financial 

Information and that the information provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, 

current, accurate, and complete. 

This 17th day of August, 2017 

17 
39 

UNITED STATES OFFICE OF 

GOVERNMENT ETHICS * --------------

The Honorable Ron Johnson 

Chairman 

Committee on Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 2051 0 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

REDACTED 

August 8, 2017 

In accordance with the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, I enclose a copy of the 

financial disclosure report filed by John M. Mitnick, who has been nominated by 

President Trump for the position of General Counsel, Department of Homeland Security. 

We have reviewed the report and have obtained advice from the agency concerning any 

possible conflict in light of its functions and the nominee's proposed duties. Also enclosed is an 

ethics agreement outlining the actions that the nominee will undertake to avoid conflicts of 

interest. Unless a date for compliance is indicated in the ethics agreement, the nominee must 

fully comply within three months of confirmation with any action specified in the ethics 

agreement. 

Based thereon, we believe that this nominee is in compliance with applicable laws and 

regulations governing conflicts of interest 

Sincerely, 

David J. Apol 

Acting Director and General Counsel 

Enclosures REDACTED 

·--------------"--·----- * * * * 1201 NEW YORK AVE NW·SUI'fESOO·WASHTNGTON DC·20005 
40 

Joseph Maher 

Designated Agency Ethics Official 

Department of Homeland Security 

Washington, D.C. 20528-0485 

Dear Mr. Maher, 

August3,2017 

The purpose of this letter is to describe the steps I will take to avoid any actual or 

apparent conflict of interest in the event 1 am confirmed for and appointed to the position of 

General Counsel, Department of Homeland Security. 

As required by 18 U.S.C. § 208(a), I will not participate personally and substantially in 

any particular matter in which l know that I have a financial interest directly and predictably 

affected by the matter, or in which I know that a person whose interests are imputed to me has a 

financial interest directly and predictably affected by the matter, unless I first obtain a written 

waiver pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 208(b)(l), or qualify for a regulatory exemption pursuant to 18 

U.S.C. § 208(b)(2). I understand that the interests of the following persons are imputed to me: 1 

any spouse or minor child of mine; any general partner of a partnership in which I am a limited 

or general partner; any organization in which I serve as an officer, director, trustee, general 

partner or employee; and any person or organization with which I am negotiating or have an 

arrangement concerning prospective employment. 

If confirmed by the United States Senate, prior to assuming the duties of General 

Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, I will resign from my positions with The Heritage 

Foundation and Merton College Charitable Corporation, and as Trustee of my Family Trust. For 

a period of one year after my resignation from each of these entities, I will not participate 

personally and substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties in which I know 

any of these entities is a party or represents a party, unless I am first authorized to participate 

pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 2635.502(d). 

The Heritage Foundation may pay me a pro rata bonus that covers only the period of 

calendar year 2017 prior to my resignation. The amount of this bonus will be calculated and paid 

to me by The Heritage Foundation prior to assuming the duties of General Counsel, and I will 

forfeit any amounts not paid to me prior to assuming the duties of General Counsel. If I receive 

the bonus, I will not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter involving 

specific parties in which I know The Heritage Foundation is a party or represents a party for a 

1 Subject to applicable U.S. Office of Government Ethics and other federal government legal and policy guidance. 
41 

period of two years from the date on which l recdvc the bonus, unkss [ first receive a written 

waiver pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 2635.503(c). Dming my appointmentlutho position of General 

Counsel, I will not receive any payments l'rom The Heritage Foundation and will not have any 

other right or claim for further payments from The Heritage Foundation. 

As a former executive with Raytheon Company, I will continue to participate in the 

Raytheon Company deferred compensation plan. During my appointment to the position of 

General Counsel, for as long as I continue lo participate in such deferred compensation plan, as 

required by lll U.S.C. § 208(a) I will nol participate personally and substantially in any particular 

matter that to my knowledge has a direct and predictable cfTect on the ability or willingness of 

Raytheon Company to provide the foregoing contractual benefit, unless l first obtain a written 

waiver pursuant to l8 U.S.C. § 208(b)(l), or qualify lbr a regulatory exemption pursuant to 18 

u.s.c. § 208(b)(2). 

Upon confirmation, I will resign from my position with Valaumm, Inc. Because I will 

continue to hold stock and stock options in Valmu·um, lnc .. during my appointment to the 

position of'Oenerul Counsel, as required by 18 U.S.C. § 20S(u). I will not participate personally 

and substantially in uny parliculm matter that to my knowledge has a direct and predictable 

cfTeet on the 11nancial interests ofValuurum. Inc., unless I tlrst obtain a written waiver pursuant 

[() !8 u.s.c. § 208(b)( 1 ). 

l am the sole shareholder of Team Baseballs, Inc., which has occasionally acquired and 

sold items. During my appointment to the position of General Counsel, the corporation will not 

acquire new items. Iff continue lo maintain the ~ream Baseballs, Inc .. website domain name and 

home page. I will delete the pages from the website on which books and other items are sold or 

on which there arc endorsements pertaining to any other parties or relcrcnces to my expert 

commentary. [will delete or disable any mtvigation links !hHn I he home page. and I will add a 

statement to the home page that the website is inactive. Dming my appointment to the position 

oi' General Counsel, the corporation will be inactive and I will not perform any services for the 

corporation, except thatlhe corporation will comply with any and all requirements involving 

corporate and legal ft lings, p1·eparation and filing of tax returns. and payment of taxes and lees. 

and r may participate in such activities. During my appointment tnthe position of General 

Counsel, as required by 18 U.S.C. § 208(a), I will not participate personally and substantially in 

any particular mat1c1· that to my knowledge has a direct and predictable eff'cct on the Jinanciul 

interests of Team Baseballs, lnc., unless [ tirst obtain a written waiver pursuant to 18 U.S. C. 

§ 20S(b)(l). 

l am the sole shareholder of Southeast Property Development Corporation ("SPDC"), 

which holds one undeveloped parcel of land in Georgia. During my appointment to the position 

ofGeneri~l Counsel, SPDC will be inactive and will not acquire new property, and I will not 

pcrtonn any services for SPDC or represent SPDC in any way, except that SPDC may (I) sell 

the land, and (2) comply with any and all rcquircmcnls involving corporate and legal lilings. 

1 
42 

preparation and filing of tax returns, and payment of taxes and fees; and I may participate in such 

activities. Another officer of SPDC will address, on behalf of SPDC, any and all zoning, 

permitted use, tax assessment, and eminent domain matters that arise relating to the land. I may 

receive investment income from SPDC. During my appointment to the position of General 

Counsel, as required by 18 U.S.C. § 208(a), I will not participate personally and substantially in 

any particular matter that to my knowledge has a direct and predictable effect on the financial 

interests of the SPDC unless I first obtain a written waiver pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 208(b)(l). 

During my appointment to the position of General Counsel, I will not actively participate 

in the management of or provide other services to Rosedale Manor Associates, L.L.P. 

("Rosedale"), and l will grant a proxy for voting my partnership interest on issues relating to the 

management of the partnership. I may receive investment income from Rosedale. During my 

appointment to the position of General Counsel, as required by 18 U.S.C. § 208(a), l will not 

participate personally and substantially in any particular matter that to my knowledge has a direct 

and predictable effect on the financial interests of Rosedale, unless I first obtain a written waiver 

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 208(b)(J). 

I may receive compensation for sales of my book, Team Baseballs: Artifacts of the Game, 

from Amazon and from sales that my co-author's company makes through conferences, events, 

and other marketing efforts. I will not personally participate in sales of my book. During my 

appointment to the position of General Counsel,! will not participate personally and 

substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties in which I know my co-author is 

a party or represents a party, unless I am first authorized to participate pursuant to 5 C.F.R. 

§ 2635.502(d). 

If I have a managed account or otherwise use the services of an investment professional 

during my appointment to the position of General Counsel, I will ensure that the account 

manager or investment professional obtains my prior approval on a case-by-case basis for the 

purchase of any assets other than cash, cash equivalents, investment funds that qualify for the 

exemption at 5 C.F.R. § 2640.20l(a), obligations of the United States, or municipal bonds. 

I will meet in person with you during the first week of my service in the position of 

General Counsel in order to complete the initial ethics briefing required under 5 C.F.R. 

§ 2638.305. Within 90 days of my confirmation, I will also document my compliance with this 

ethics agreement by notifying you in writing when I have completed the steps described in this 

ethics agreement. 

I have been advised that this ethics agreement will be posted publicly, consistent with 5 

U.S.C. § 552, on the website of the U.S. Office of Government Ethics with ethics agreements of 

other Presidential nominees who file public financial disclosure reports. 

3 
43 

Finally, I understand that as an appointee I will be required to sign the Ethics Pledge 

{Exec. Order No. 13770), and that I will be bound by the requirements and restrictions therein in 

addition to the commitments [ have made in this ethics agrc.:mcnt. 

Sincerely, 

~7h/--~~ John M. Mitnick 

4 
44 

ti.S. Senate ( 'ornmitlcc on Hmncland St;curity and Gmcnuuental Affaks 

Prc·hcarin;: Questionnaire 

Fur the Nmninatiun of .Jnlm Marshall Mitnick to he 

General Counsel, l>epartmcnt of Homeland Security 

I. N(Jminntion Process and Conflicts of !ntcrcsi 

l. Did the Prc•sidcnl. !louse Department of llorndand Sec uri!) (DllS 

the Department) \lf!1t:ials you about why \\ere nominated HI be 

DHS Gcnn;~! Counsd . and they'' 

So. bw it was 

f)f !Sand the 

!)encml ('ounsd 

in the conw:rsalions !hal my experiem:e as an atlurne,r. and particularly in 

llmls(:. was a factor in the d<:cisionto nominate me lu he !he ncxl [)/I.',' 

Were any cnnditions. expressed or implied. attached to your !l()tninatiorf:' !I so. please 

Have you made any commitments with r.:speet to the and nn'"''"r,r·s you will 

attempt 10 impkrnc!l\ as General Counsel'! if !H\. what are they, and to were the 

commitm<:nts made'' 

Arc you business dealing. or financial tr<~J1S;acrmn that could 

result in a possible connict or inlcrest fur Y•>ll tlK· appearance 

please what you \\ill usc to re.,;usc 

conllict. if you re~use yorrrsd[ explain how 

arc not affect<:d by your rccusal. 

In nmnectiun with I he nomination process. 1 haw: co/lsu/u:d with Otlici! of(im·cmnwnt 

and th~ o!Homeland Security Ot:si!!,naied A;wncy Otlida{ 

uny potcnlial Any potenrial olinleres/ 

JNon"lmw'' wi!l11he !<Tms u/ on elhics f hmv 

lot hies Oific ial 

aware of any other potential e<m/lidl 

;nun inmlremcnl in a f>ar!icular mailer. 1 assign jill/ l'i!sponsihilill' JiJr such mailer to 

a nor her senior utlomev in/he Department's ( !j/ice oft he Oeneral Counvd 
45 

II. Ha.:kground of the 1'\ominec 

5. What specific background. experience, and attributes qualify you lobe General Counsel? 

My specific background. e.\perit~nce, and artrihutes that qua/if)• ml! to be !Jenera! Counsel 

including thejo!lmring· 

• I am a member in good standing of' the State Bar (!{Georgia. and l have heen admilled ru 

practice hcfbre numerous Georgia andfedera/ courts. including the Supreme ('our! of 

the [jnitedS!ates. 

• J have pracliced lmrfilr 28 years at the highesllevels. including orer.fiw: years us a 

senior/i<deral gm·ernnwnt attorney in f)f IS' and the White /louse; nine years us a 

corporate gent~ral counsel and cmjJorate secretary in the private secwr (indudi11g o1·er 

fi\'e years orexperiem:e with .federal gorernmen/ contracts); and m'arly I 3 yecws as WI 

associate and a partner in a major internalionallawfirm, assislinf!, clients with busines.1 

rransactions. 

• J have extensive experience with homeland Si!curity !.:gal matters, including !un•ing 

served in thejb!lowing positions.· f lj one of' a small group o{allorneys in the 'lhmsitiun 

Planning DH5>. Hhich had the principal responsibiliiyjilr standing up the 

Di!partmem in late 1002 and eurZr ]01!3; (2) !)f!S'stirst ,•lssociatc General Coumel/in· 

Science and Technology and an infegralmemher ofthefirsl leadership ream u{DHS 's 

Office of the General ( 'ounse! (201!3 to ]00·1). r3) Deputy ( 'ounse/ of'!he !fomeland 

Security Council in the While House (2004 lo 2005}; and (4) Associate Counsel!o the 

President with primary responsihililyj(Jr all homeland securily legal mailers in the While 

ffouse 12005 to 21)(!:'). 

• A{r dedicalionro public serPice and I he mission ofDI IS. as demonstrared hy my previous 

fi:deral gorermnenf servin: 

• Strong lexal acumen and sound judgm<'/11, as eridenced hy my successfl!l per/i;rmana in 

each position in which f have served in mv career. as well as my academic record 

6. Please describe: 

a. Your leadership and management style. 

A(F leadership and managemem style is to set an example <!/integrity, excrdlenct~, 

trustworlhiness. appropria£e transparency and candor. accessihility. humilily. and dedication to 

the mission of' the organization while promoting a collegial. collahorative, murualfy,,\·upportive 

environme/11 in which (1) excellence is cxpecled. (2) atune oj'trust in and respeci.fbr colleagues 

and rn·erriding good will is maintained. (3} context is sello bolster organizational goals and 

allow individuais lo take responsihiliry and excelji·eefi'om micrtHnanaging. (I) critical 

thinking. discussion. and respecffid disagreement are welcome and encouraj!t~d while preserving 

the manageml!nt structure. (5) cons/rucrivefcedhack isfi'equl!nt!y given. and personnel an' 
46 

encouraged 10 ask!ilr it al any time. (6) mentoring is encouraged and prac/iced at all levels, r:') 

personal agendas, 1<{jice po/i!ics, andjuvorilism arc not!oleraled. and (8) suceesses are 

celehrated, and the primary re,;ponsr to failure is not blame, but rather addressing the problem 

and implementing a robust lessons-learned process with annronrh11e 

b. Your experience managing personneL 

1 hare managed personnel at each stage ofmy career, including other attorneys, narale!>a!s 

administrative assistants, and, at Raytheon Company, my division :1 entire Environmental. 

llealth and S£!/e(v organization. In all ((('the organi:::alions in which I have worked. I have had 

hiring, day-to-day manage men/, perfi>rmance evaluations. 

devl'iopment 

c. What is the largest number of people thai have worked under you? 

The largest man her of'people that have reported 10 me or indirectly) in any previous 

position was 30 (a/ Raytheon Companyj, including nine senior a/lorneys, l have, however. 

setTee/ in s.:veraf senior executive positions. in the federal government and in the private sector, 

in 1Fhfch 1 WiLl' an integral member o(,1enior leadership teams !hal managed organi:::ations 

ranp;ingfrom several hundred to more than 'J, 000 employees. 

7. How might your previous work as Associate Counsel to the Wbite House and Deputy 

Counsel of the Homeland Security Council inf1uencc your role as General Counsel, if 

confirmed? 

in the rVhite House Counsel's q{jice as Associate Counsel to the 

tTI··w;,mr (2005 to 2007) and Deputy Counsel r!fthc !lome/and Security Council (200-1 /o 2005), 

1 gained the/ill/owing experience which if'! am eonjirme<t. should influence and enhance my 

per(ormance as General Counsel: 

• in addressing sub.wan/ive issues. including /hose 

10 theji!!lowing areas: hordcr and ln:mspurlation security and immigration; 

cybersecurity: critical inf'rastructure protection: prevention preparl'dness. response, and 

recovery relating to terrorist atlacks. major disasters, and other emergencies; defense 

against chemical, biological, radiological, nucfear, and explosive threats: and cmuinuily 

of' gm·ernment. Jfconfirmed, I hat experience will he beneficial to me in carrving out/he 

<!fthe General Counsel. 

• as a dai(V participant in deve/opmenl and coordination process led 

!louse stqft: including preparing fin·. attending, and participating in policy 

coordination, deputies. and principals commi/lee meetings and drqfiing dozens of' 

execu/h•e orders, presidenria! direetives, and otha presidential policy documents, ll 

confirmed that experience will assist 1111: in helping to ensure that D/I.'\ is an engaged 

parlicipant in this Administration's polk}' development and coordination 

process. 
47 

• Experience in dratiing reviewing. commenting on. rerising. and dearing homeland 

security-related regulations in the process administered hy the 0(/icc o{M(J!Jagcmem 

and Bud?;et's (Jf)ice of Information and Regu!cttory Ajf{1irs (0/RA). !{confirmed. that 

expaience will be beneficial to me in managing the Department's rulemaking processes. 

• Etperience in mediming disagreements regardinx legal issues between and among 

federal departments and agencies. [(confirmed. that experience will he valuable in 

workinx with my counterparts a/ other departments and agencies to advance the mission 

ofD!!.'i. 

8. Please describe any previous cxperiem:e you have working with the federal regulatory and 

rule-making process. 

,tl Associate ( icneral Counsel.fbr Science and Technolo!{v at JJHS ( 101J3 to 2/HJ./). f was 

principally rcsponsib!ejiJr the regulations implementing the S'upport Anti-terrorism by Fostering 

E(fi'Ciiw J(,dmologies ACI o.f2002 (the SAFETY Act). induJing drcrfling and publishing for 

public comment the No/ice <?{Proposed Rulemaking considering all public comments received 

dra/iing and promulgaling the Interim Final Rule. and advising the Secrerary <!lllomelantl 

Security and the Under ,\'ecrelaryj(w Science and 7echnology wirh regard to all oftilefi>regoing 

f was also substamiaily involved in drafiing and.flnalizinx the S>1FETY Act Final Rule in the 

!Jepartmem and in the lfhite !louse Counsel's Office. {n my capacity as Associate General 

Cuumdjilr Science and Teeilnolo,t,:ry. I was also the principal legal adviser to Dl!S 's Office o{ 

S!ll·ETYAct !mplemenlafion. As !Jepllly Counsel olfhe Homeland Security Council and as 

Associate Counsel to the President (20!)4 to 2007j, I reviewed and eleared ctll homeland securift· 

regulations in the process administered hy O!RA. 

Ill. Role ofthe (;cncral Counsel at OHS 

9. What do you believe is the role of General Counsel at DllS'? 

o/Dl!S. the primwy role of'the General Counsel is to provide sound. 

timely. ami legal adviL·e io the Ser:retwy. other f)[ IS senior leaders. and the 

Deparlmem as a whole, ensuring Jhai all ac!il'ilies of the lJepartmclll.fiilly comply with a!! 

applicable legal requirements, including laws protecling the privacy and other legal rights of 

Americans. The General Counsel is also responsible/or li!ading and managing !he 

approximately 1.800 attorneys who serve in the Department's Ojfice (1(/he General Cmmsd 

ihe General Counsel is also uniquefv situated to enhanc.: cooperation and coordination among 

!he Department's eight operational componcn!s and ils support componenls. 

I 0. lf conlirmed. what \Vill be the immediate highest priority issues that you expect to address? 

What longer-term goals would you like to achieve'' 

/fcontirmed, I lookf(mvard to working with rhe Secretary of' Homeland Securi!J'. other DlfS 

sl!nior leaders. and the Office of the General Counsel to idelllijy and priorili.:e issues thai should 

hr addressed immediately and to develop longer-term goals. Among the faller. 1 would like 10 

!mild upon the work o{my predeci!Ssors in enhancing the coordination, intexration. and 

4 
48 

professional development oft he af/orneys and other staf{in rhe Office of the (ieneral Counsel 

ami ensuring the high quality and consiste11cv '!/legal advice ihroughoutthe Department. 

11. What role do you believe the General Counsel should have in reviewing executive orders or 

other administration polices that impact DHS? 

1 he!ieve !halt he General Counsel should he an active panicipan! in the executive hranch 's 

policy dewlopment and coordinaton process, either by parlicipating directly in that prucess 

(when appropriate) or by advising and staffing other J)flS senior leaders in the course ofrheir 

parlicipalion in that process. 

J 2. What do you believe is the appropriate relationship between the Dl IS OHicc of General 

Counsel and component legal departments? 

I he!iel'e that the existing struc/Ure (?!the Df!S Office ofrhe General Counsel, in which all 

componenl legal departments an part ot'the (Jffice I{{ the General Counsel and all component 

allorneys report Ia the General Counsel (except as otherwise required by statute in the CIL'e of' 

!he US Seer<'! Service}. reflects the appropriate relationship he!lveen the Dl!S (}[/ice of'the 

(;eneral Cmmsel and compone111 legal departments. That structure was original/y implemented 

whenlhe Department was esJablished in 2003, and it was designed to ensure /he quality ami 

consistencv o{/egal advice throughou1 the Depart men/. 

13. Do you believe it is important to ensure consistency of legal positions across the 

Department? If so, what steps would you take to ensure that consistency? 

I helie1·e that it is important to ensure 1he consistency olfegal posilions and advice tm·mJoiJ,mil 

!he Department. !fconjirmed I would employ the structure of the Office olfhc General 

in which ail component atwmeys (excepr as otherwise required by statute in the case o(/he U.S 

Seen! 5'ervice) report to !he General Counsel and not to the head\· of'the components. combined 

wirh I he subject matter expertise of the nine legal divisions within/he headquarters ofjh:e o{the 

Office o,fthe (ieneral Counsel and robust processes of'intemal communication collahoralion. 

coordinaiion, accmmtahilily, and professional development, in order lo ensure 1/wr consisrem·v. 

IV. l'olicy Questions 

14. Do you believe that D! IS has sutlicicnt legal authority to enable it to interact cffccti vcly 

with other agencies. particularly when its mission overlaps with other agencies or requires 

DliS to coordinme !l:dcral ct!i>rts across agencies'! Please explain. 

l[conlirm!!d. 1 will work wilh the Secretary ofHomeland Sl!curity and uther Df!S senior leaders 

IIi conduct a comprehensive review (!fDl!.'>'lega/ authorities in order to determine whc!her the 

Deparrment has SIJ!flciem autlwrilies to interact eff'ectiveiy with other agencies in accomplishing 

irs mission. and. i/nol. I will develop a si!l of'recommendmions to address the deficiency. 
49 

On ''hat 

information or \l(lCUmcnls from 

l bdiere thai oFers(~!u aelivities are 

the ji;(fi/!ment o/ils consiitutimwl pou•.:rs, 

executive hranch In in the 

that lhe Department 

information or docmmmtsfrom 

be emitted to 'vithhold 

<{/the Con;;ress !hut are net:"''"''''"' 

also vita/to ihe properjunclioning 

of a valid claim a{ executive 

Under what cir~umstm1ces, if any, do you believe an official or employee of the Department 

may decline testily bcf(>rc a congrc·ssiona! <.:ommittcc? Please C'lplain. 

liz general, l believe thai testifying be{hre congressional committees when invited is one 

duties o/of/icials and De;l(ttlment. In ligh1 importance 

mtm,;:wt'ltrws. l that il 

an excrcis;' of' the nmslilutional right a,gain.;t srlf:inaimination, u!tlumf!.h thai rig/11 is po,<.\i'Ss;•d 

and musr bl! the individual official or empluvct: and >rould no/ he a.>serted hy the 

/leparlment. 

What criteria should the Of! lee of General Coumd usc to decide whc!h<:r and how 10 

respond ro 

In general. the Office (iem?ra/ ('ounse! should cooperale with congressional 

,tt'fivifics ,md respoud In a timely mwmer to requests from documents. 

!he ahilizr 10 be responsin: he <tf/ectetl 

"'''"''"''"''O/ the requests at isstw; the to which re.1p011Sil't:' infi:mnatirm 

ucct'.I'S/fJ/e in a rcsponsivejormal within a reasonable Iimejramc: the ohilit)' of 

what may he multiple, competing requesfs: the need 10 address the 

l'h'''''utr·Nt infontwlion or !m(v privilegr:d communicalimzs: and !he capacity o/'ihe 

and the possib/(' nced/iw Office lo nruJJm,,~,, 

o1lu./r sensitin.: llli'<H'ln,mon 

10 protect inflmnutio/1 

What do you hdh:vc an: the Dcpartrncnrs resp,nlsibilitics fbr complying with r<Cquests !'rom 

the Govvrnmcnt /weountability Office (GAOl'! 

In general. 1 believe that the /)eparlmen! 

accordance with UAO's 

in a timelr manner with document 

rights 

Slalllre. 
50 

a. Do) m1 bdievc there arc lawful n.:asnn' In withhold docurnt:nts .hom 0!\0, aud if so. 

arc 

understanding thai (iA(J 's """'''"''''' 

including 

desiwwtes as.fore(r;rl imcltigence or 

are ~ped/il:all)' ,.•xemp!i:d/rom disclosure !o iht• ( w.rwt.rwu-r 

di}Clltltei1/s ilw disdosurc of>~ hkh 

opcralitms o{llu: Gm•crmnent" and which 1ri1hhdd under either 5 US. C. § 552(b;r5; 

r,·ertain delibcratire process documents) or !hii7.J fcertah1 low enjiltcemenl documents). as 

certified hy !he Pres idem or rhe !Jirector oft he Of! icc of .Hunagemcnl and Budget. 

b. :\s Ocncml Counsel, how will you C!lsure that the n:lationship with GAO is a 

constructive one? 

Jfnmtlrmed, as Ueneral Counsel I wilf work toenmre that/he relalionship with ( iAO is 

constructive unc hy a rrmlual/y coopcratin: relatiomlrip and continuing dialogue 

hctwcen Dl!S and UA( I through on wmmilmcnls w r<'Spmul approprialeiy to 

( 

1 '!. Whut d" )<>ll believe are the with tequcs:t 

the <lf!ke 

that/he Depanmenl should comply in a 

at·cordan(·t wilh relel'lllli (cderu/ swwres m 

c '.FR. 5 . ./. 

LL Do you bdieve there are law!hl reasons In withhold document:; th)!Tl OSC and 

what an.~ they'! 

tlr•nol'lt.ll<"'ttx and agencies. Df!S, have wilhheld docum(!ntsfrom OS(· 

bused on privilege. lam also aware O.W' lias taken the position thai 

mtt.mtey·dien/ privile;.;e is nm a valid has is on which a or agmcv may withhold 

documents or other infi>rmutionjhnn OSC. AI this lime. 1101 ha1·e uccess to the documems 

and that f would need to rt'ricnv in to respond/idly fill his question 

b. befi:m: the i louse Cnmmillcc on ( hcrsight and Govennnem Reform in 

Acting TSA Administrator. l!uban Gnwadia. cited DHS 

the reason !\w TSA · s of docunwnts requ~:sted by OSC on basis 

attom..:y-dimlt pri,ilegc. Dl!S to Committee stailthat 

withholding documents !rom OSC nn 

bmnch pnlicy. \\'hat sp~;:dtk case law. \Hitkn memoranda. 

rcwmmcmlations. policies. or (1\hcr do you be lien: alltm Dl lS to ''ithh,;ld 

documents li·mn OSC on the (lfa (\>mmmt-llm Please produc~ <lil' 

sw:h dncum;:nts to the Cornmitlc~. 
51 

At!!JL, tim<'. I do not have an:c.\.\ 1o the docume111s and in/ul'lllllliwlthw I ;rould need 111 

!!'confirmed. mt!w of the Commilfee. 1 

nUJiter 

Oencml ( 'nunseL h(m ''iH you 

constructive 

llcon/irmed. as Uem:ra/ ( 'mmsel I will work /II ensure that lite relatiomhip II ilh asc (1 

nmstructire Oil<! hy.Ji>stering a mu/lla/ly ,·ooperatire rrdmiwrship and continuing dialOf..'Uc> 

hdu.-ecn /)f [.<;and OSC and/iJI!owing lhrough on cummilmcnls II! respond appropriately to OSC 

rcquc,vts. 

20. What do you believe arc the Department's responsibilities I'm cmnplying with requests fi·mn 

the Dl IS Oflkc of Inspector General (()l(i)'.' 

In gene mi. I helie1·c that the Departmem should cmnp~v in timclv mwmer wirl1 reif!li'Sisji·om 

()/(;in acc<mluncc with lfw Inspector (;em:nd Acto/ !9"8. as and the provisions 

the /IIJtnchmd Security Acl of 200:: re!wing tu Of(; 

What do ) ou see spccilically as the Gcncrn! 

( 'mmsef 's role in comp(ving 

DI!S t!fJicials and employees co,u/lir?l'itle 

.wpportinp, ami working t·nnnr•r,!Jf11'"''' 

J wulashmd are assigned to 

role in complying with Ol(i 

b. Do you hdkvc thcP..: arc lawful reasons tu \Viththold documents fi·om the OlG. and 

what are they? 

J m1derstand I hal there is specific guidance within the Department. original~v issued in 2008, 

rclatillg IU the oh!iga!hms '!fDffS employees /o coorJeraie with 0/(i. which directs employees lo 

consul! with the ( Jifin: olrhc General Counsel i(requesteJ docunu.:nls are classified, 

deliheralin:, or otherwise sensith't!. AI !his time, J do not have to the documents and 

intormt11iontllul 1 would need to review in order re,pondjullv 10 this question. 

rdatim>ship with DllS O!G is 

cnm,rrn·wrl as ( 'mmse/ I will work to ensun: rhat tile n:lmionship wirh DHS ()J(j a 

one hy lowering a collegial and mu!Ua!ly and support inc rei<IIionship 

and euminuing dialoj~ue bt'!Jn'enthe IH'II cumruments. lu>/ping 10 em we !hal all f)/ IS 

uf!icials and employees coopermetitllv Hith OHi audits and inwstigatiom 
52 

2!. If contirmcd, do you commit to ensuring that the Dl!S OIG has all the documents and 

in formation it needs to p<:rform its job? 

Yes, wilhinthe scope of' my authority as Cienaal Counsel. 

22. Whistfeblowers continue to be an important way Congress, agencies and inspectors general 

receive complaints regarding v;astc, fraud and abuse. 

a. What role do you believe the Oftlce of General Counsel should play in protecting 

whistleblowcrs at DHS'? 

I believe thai/he Office oft he General Counsel should protect whistlebluwers at Dl/S by 

ad1•ising DI!S r>!ficia/s and employees <!/!heir obligmionto Gomply wilh applicahle law. 

including !he prohihitions on retaliation against whistleblmmrs 

b. lf confirmed, how will you assist DHS in implementing policies that encourage 

employees to bring constructive suggestions f(,rward without the fear of r~prisal' 1 

!(confirmed I will assist f)f/S in implementing policies that enwurage empli~yees ro bring 

constructive suggeslionsfiwward wilhmil the fear of'reprisal by encouraging the use <If' 

compfaim or suggestion hotlines. advisingji!l/mr Dl!S r<fficials and employees not to engage in 

any reprisal against Those who brillgfiJrward constructive suxges/irms. and selling an example 

H'irhin the Office of' the General Counsel hy encouraging aflorneys and support personnel to 

bringjimmrd such su;;geslions. 

c. lfconfirmcd. do you commit without reservation to work to ensure that any 

\Vhistlchlower vvithin DHS does not face retaliation'' 

llcon(inned. I commit without reserwlfion 10 work to ensure !hat any whistieh/ower wilhin DIJS 

docs not fiiCe retalialion in accordance with the prmeclions provided hy applicahlefedcrallmr. 

l'i!S. 

d. lfcon1inncd. do you commit without reservation to take all appropriate action if 

notified about potential whistlcblowcr retaliation'> 

23. l'hc Freedom of lnl(mnation Act (FOIA) plays a critical role in ensuring the integrity of our 

govcmmcnt and the vitality of our democracy. [f con !inned, what will you do to ensure that 

the Department, and all of its component agencies. properly and efficiently comply with 

FOli\'1 

J:(y underswnding is that the DIJS l'riracy Office has principal responsibilitvfilr Df!S's 

compliance with FO/A. If eonfirmfd. !will work with !he Department ·.1· in 

order to ensure that !he Departm.:m and all ot'its component.1· proper(v and ~j}icient(v comply 

with PO/A. I willulso ensure that al/omeys within the qfJlce oft he General Counsel provide 

sound. lime~v. and aclionable !exal advice rexardin;; FOIA /o the Privacy qjj'ice. 

9 
53 

24. How should the Office of General Counsel work with and suppott the missions of the DHS 

Privacy Oflice and the Office of Civil Rights and Civil LibcrtiGs'! 

I helieve that/he Office r~{the General Counsel should work with the missions ofihe 

f)f IS Primcy qjJice and ()//ice o{Civii Rir;hts and Civil Uherties hy ( 1} providing sound. timely, 

and actionahle legal adl'iet: as requesled hy such Offices, and (2) ensurinr; that such Offices are 

appropriately consulted regarding DHS products such as guidance. prmoco!s. and 

implememation memoranda. 

25. If confirmed, how will you ensure DHS components execute border searches in compliance 

with the law" 

ffconfirmed, I will review all legal guidance issued wilhin the Department relating 10 flu: 

execution <!lbarder searches and ensure that they contain appropriaie guidance fbr perfiwming 

such searches in accordance with applicable law. 

26. If confirmed. what role will the O!lice of General Counsel play in the resolution of official 

complaints made by the public and other entities agains! those components? 

!{confirmed, I envision that the Office o{the General Counsel will be afii/1 participant in the 

resoiulion o{atl <!()ida/ complaints made by public and other entities against a DffS wmponenl 

"hen !here is a legal issue impliealed hy the complaint. 

27. [f confirmed, how will you ensure that our frontline Customs and Border Protection 

per:;;onnel have the tools they need to work effectively such as advanced border 

surveillance technology - vvhile simultaneously respecting tht• law and safeguarding tbc 

privacy of Americans? 

I{ confirmed. although as General Counsel !will not have aulhorirv decisions 

relating ro border surveillance technology. I will ensure that the ()(/ice General Coumel 

perfbrms a thorough legal analysis r>/lhe use ojsuch technolof!Y, particufarlr with regard to 

,·omplianee with the privacy and other legal rights r?{Americans. and issues sound, rim ely, and 

aelionable legal guidance to Cus/Ums and Border !'rot eel ion relating thereto. 

28. The Secure Fence Act provides Dr IS with a broad authority to waive all "legal 

requirements" in order to construct fencing along the border. What legal requirements 

should be waived in order to construct fencing along the border'! What analysis should bt 

used to dctenninc whether a legal requirement n<oeds to be waived? 

Ar this time, I do no/ have access to the documents and inj(Jimation I hat 1 would rwed to review 

in order to respond tor his question !{confirmed. of the request olthe C 'ommittee. I will 

undertake a reviev.· <!fthis maller. 

10 
54 

V. Relations with Congress 

29. Do you agree without reservation to comply with any request or summons to appear and 

testify be!<xe any duly constituted committee of Congress if you arc confirmed'! 

30. Do you agree without reservation to make any subordinate official or employee available to 

appear and testify bet{m:, or provide information to. any duly consti!Utcd committee of 

Congress if you are conlirmed'? 

31. Do you agree without reservation to comply fully. completely, and promptly to any request 

for documents, communications, or any other agency material or infom1ation from any duly 

constituted committee of the Congress if you arc confirmed? 

VI. Assistance 

:12. Arc these answers your own'? Have you consulted with !)l!S or any other interested parties'! 

l f so. please indicate which entities. 

Yes. lhese amwers are my mrn I haHc consulted wilh /)/IS personnel rt!i?GJ''atl1£' 

historical in/i1rmathm required to prol'ide responses ro certain ques!irms. 

Minority 

Supplemental l're-hearing Questionnaire 

For the Nomination of .John Marshall Mitnick to be 

General Counsel, Department of Homeland Security 

f. Background of Nominee 

and 

l. Do you seek out dissenting views and bow do you encourage constructive critical dialogue 

with subordinates? 

1 encourage subordinates 10 enga;;e in critical thinking. robust discussion. aml re,lpeclfid disse/11 

(provided that the management slructun: is preserved). making it clear thai such m:ti1·ities will 

not have adverse consequences. 1 believe thai decision-making processes are most e,tteclh'e 

when dissenting views are encouraged andfidly considered 

ll 
55 

2. Please give examples of times in your carc(:r when you disagreed with your sup~riors and 

aggressively advocated your position. Were you ever succcssfLll'' 

AllhouKh f am prevented by the alforney-client privilegefi·om providing del ail.~ in responding to 

this question. throughout my career f have soughttojiJ/fil! my professional ohligation to provide 

sound legal advice in pursuit of compliance with the law and in the best interest oft he 

organization ~~{'which I was a part. nollVilhstanding pressures relating to pn<fitahility or 

expediency or concern }fir my compensalion orjob !enure. I have also always believed that, in 

order to perjimn my role us counsel properly, it is sometime.\· necessary to "speak truth 10 

power .. and he willing to deliver advit.:e that I know will not he welcome. As a result. 

I have respectful~\' bwfirmly disagreed with my superiors and presented the 

substantive o(my position, and.fiJr/unately in euch instance unacceptable reso!Uiion was 

achieved Those m:casions wen exceptional. however. oml I have been pririleged in my career 

to have superiors who were <'thical andjidly committed to advancing the hest interest o[lhe 

organization while cmnp~ving with applicable law. 

·'· Please list and describe examples of when you made politically diflkult chokes that you 

thought were in the best interest of the country? 

A/tlwu;;h [am prevented h)l the attorney-client privilegefi-rnn providing details in respondin?,IO 

this question. durin?, my previous service in the Depar/ment of'.!ustice, Df!S~ and tlw White 

!louse. the best interest of' I he country was always my paramount concern 

4. What would you consid~:r your greatest successes as a leader? 

Although I am prevented by the atlomey-c/icnt prii·ilegefrom providing di'lails in responding to 

this iflU!Siion. 1 consider my greutesl successes as leader to hm·e been 11) ensuring thai 

individual employees olthe organizutions.fi!l' which I worked were treatedfhirly and with 

re.,pect. and {2) ensuring that the best interest (>fthe organizalionfi"· which I worked. whether in 

rhe.federul gm·ernmem or in the private sector, 1ras pursued notwithstanding any parochial 

concerns of'indiPiduals wilhin rhe organization. 

H. Policy Questions 

5. Please describe any previous cxperience·-in the public or private sector ··with handling 

whistlehlowcr complaints, and what steps you took to ensure those individuals did not il1ct: 

retaliation and that their claims were thoroughly investigated'=' 

Although I am prevented by the attomey-dienl priri/ege.fhnn providing details in responding to 

this question. in the course olmy career l have been im·olved in a jew situations involving 

individual whistleblowers, and in each instance I ensured that the individuals' claims were 

thoroughly investigaled. issued clear guidance to other personnel in the m:r.;anization thai there 

should be no rewliation aRainsl the individual. and monitored the situation/or an appropriate 

period of' time in order to RUUrd agains/ such retaliation 

12 
56 

!low will ~nsmc that whistlcblow<.:r ,·omplaints ar.; prop~rly investigated'' 

If conlirmcd. what steps will you take w !hat you an: mvnrrmrian.-lv 

i\dmini:;tmtinn po!i~:ics and prac1iccs that d1cct the missimr 

f intend to develop cordial and cooperative workiug with IH1ile 

s!af{aml my coun/erparts at other departments and ag.:ndes in order to ensure that 1 am 

conmllcd on und included in !he Adminislralion 's polity dnelopmem and 

8. As Ocncml CnunseL what steps will you take to ensure products such as 

irnplcrnenwtion memoranda, and protocnls m·t: reviewed and approVc'd by the Office of 

Gt:ncral ( 'ounseL What steps, if any. will you take to current products that arc rdied 

upon Ill IS ..:mnponcnts'' 

ill vnsure !hat pmducts such m ""''""nee 

ami approrc:d DJ!S 0/Jice 

depi1/'ff11t/llJL/! fill"<'f'lH'f'C rr'IOIIY!ti'f' 

lmplen!ellled andJi'lllmred 

direCiivcs whether approml hy 

u{rhcm, w1d will use my best e.ffims to remetl)' 

Depwy and Associate <Jenera/ Counsels and !he componem legal depamnenrs in 

order fo identif.i' <Ill)' implementation memoramla, and pro!oco/s !hal are in need ol 

l'('l'iea· !he Office, and I will acl promprfv to ,;any uul!lw rn·ieH' and appnn·tJI 

o/uny documents thai are so idenl!/ied. 

9, Will you commit to ensuring that the Oftk<.: of General Counsel has sullicient personnel to 

r~spond to document requests and the liKilitatc tlK· internal review process to 

ensure the· delivery of mat<:r!ab CongrL'Ss? 

10. In !hi: Llfresponding to a congrcssic'nal requ,·st. will cmnmil to providing 

docnmcms opportunities simultaneous!) thl' and 

Ranking Mcmhcr'? 
57 

II. lfconllnnet!, d<) you commit lo ensuring thai DI!S Oflkc and th<: Ofllce of Civil 

and Civil Liberties arc appropriately consulted on the r~vicw of Dl IS pwducl-; such 

guidance. pwtico!s. and impkmentarion mcmr.m1nda': 

twrh;n·>~vas General Counsd 1 commit to ensuring thai the 

and Ch·i/ Uherties 

What role should the General Counsd in devch1ping and rc:vicwing guidance. training 

oflicers regarding the pr(lpcr usc of horckr 

I he lien• thai the ()jjic<' o{the General Counsel should n!\'iew all guidance, training, and 

prorocols relating 10 the execution o(horder searchr•s in order lo ensure that they comply wiih 

Of'fllir:ahle lmr. 

\3. What role should the Office of General Counsel in ensuring thai DIIS components 

properly notify and cngagc with state. locaL 

missions': 

and community groups impacted by tht~ir 

oblif!,ation requiring noti/iwtion 

''"''et"fflllnlf.\ or rommuniiy groups impacted the ora 

1.1!.: General Coun'd should issue sound limdy, and actionable 

compm1c111 regarding such ohligalion 

\4, If conlirmc<i, you commit to ensuring that DJ IS C<lmpon.::nts comply with any and all 

judi<.:ial decisions and orders? 

l H'illuse my heSI efjims ttJ enwre I hal DJ IS cmnpm11'i11S comply wilh any and all 

Ufipliwhlejudidaf decisions and orders, suhjvcllo the guidaNce Department ufJuslice. 

15, If contlrmcd. how will you ensure Dl IS 

obligations to 

the United 

review asylum and 

cmnply with l.:S and international 

cases and gran! valid claimams entry into 

If cmrtirmed. IH·i!l <'11-'"/l!'e thm sound. timely. and acrhmaMe guidann• is issued to Df!S 

co,rm.•on•ents regarding their with all applicub!e legal obligations lo revielr myiwn 

cliJmlwllscnll:v illfo the l'ni~ed Slain, awl <rill use hesi 

B<~s<:d on ;.our experience as Gcncm! Counsel and explain how you would 

~<tnl to ;,c.;ure 1h.: privacy of Amcri~:an citiz<:ns may have It> give up pa~swmds or 

other sensitive inh,nnat inn in the course of bordt'r search? 

]4 
58 

!fconfirmi!d, I would work lo se,·ure the privacy ri)!.hls ofAmeriwn citizens >vho may have to 

.~ire up pas.nvord~ or other sensitive in[<"trmation in the course of a border search by ensuring it1 

coordination with !he DIJS l'rivacy Ojficc, I hill sound. limely, and actionahle legal guidance is 

provided to Custom.1· and Border i'rolec/ion Personnel who cany oul such searches regarding 

(I) the circumsfances in which they may access such il?fimnalion, and (2) i(mch it?fimnalion is 

uccessed. their obligations to safeguard I he security olsuch infimnation 

17. To construct a 2,000 mile waH on our southern hordcr, the US. Government will have to 

procure vast str~atches of land that arc ownt:d by private citizens, Native Am~rican tribes, 

and states. What, if any, role do you believe the Office of General Counsel should play in 

determining which parcels of land along the southcm border need to be procured? 

Ali hough 1 have not he<!n involved in any of the planning '!f'tlu: horder wall. my view is that the 

determination of'ihe property rights that will have to In; procured 1viillargc~v he driven by the 

operational requirements upon which the designM am/ precise location(:~; o/'!he wall will be 

based. Such d~termination is not a.fimction ollhe Office of'tlze General Counsel. 

18. President Trump's executive order entitled, '"Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior ofthc 

United States". calls nn agencies to, "to the extent consistent \·Vith applicable law. ensure 

that their privacy policies ,;xcludc persons who are not United States citizens or lawful 

pcnnanent residents from the protections of the Privacy Act regarding personally 

idcntit!ablc intixmation." DHS representatives have told the committee that a wholesale 

removal act protections will not be possible given the sensitivity of some 

information. If conflrmed. \\hal steps will you take to implement this policy, and what 

changes. if any would you suggest to DllS' s current interpretation of this policy~' 

All his time, I do not have access to the documents and inji1rmation thai I would need to reriew 

in order to respond lo this question. Jfcor!firmed. a/ !he request (!!'the Committee. !will 

undertake a revie1r of'lhis mal!er. 

19. CBP employees arc responsible lor the provision of accurate intonnation to individuals 

wishing to enter the United States at ports of entry or along the hordcr and f(lr ensuring that 

those who wish to claim asylum ure granted the opportunity to have their claims heard. 

Despi!t: this, there have been reports that CBP oflicers and others in the employ of DHS 

have given inaccurate infonnation to those presenting themselves at the border regarding 

their ahility to daim asylum in the Unites States. As General Counsel, what do you believe 

your role should be in ensuring that DHS employees provide accurate inl()rmation to the 

public? lfconf1rrned, what ~icps will you take to examine and pursue the allegations that 

inaccurate iniommtion has heen provided by DHS employees at the border'? 

!!confirmed. as General ( 'ounsell believe that my role would be 10 ensure thm ( 'Bl' personnel 

and other Dfl) employees receive sound, timezr. and uctiunable legal f!.Uidance re/aling to tlze 

perjimnance oj'theirfimctions. including w~v ohligalion to provide ii?Fmnationrelating to 

applying.fnr asylum. lf'conjirmed, I will undertake a review of' the referenced allegmions. 

l) 
59 

Ill. Relations with Congress and the Public 

20. If con finned, how will you make cci1ainthat you will respond in a timely manner to 

t>,:lcmbcr requests for infom1ation'? 

{(confirmed, in accordance with the relevant opinions (!llhe Office <ij'Legal Counsel (!(/he 

Department <!!'Justice, and subji!Cf to any necessary prioriti;;alion based on !he availabifily ol 

personm:l and other resources, f will assip11he personnel and other resources necessw}' 10 

respond in a timely manner to Member requestsf(>r information 

21 If confirmed. do you agree without reservation to reply to any reasonable request for 

information !i·mn the Ranking Member or any duly constituted committee of the Congress? 

!{confirmed, in accordance with the relevam opinions oft he (~fjice <((Legal ('mmsel of'! he 

Department of'Justice, and subject to any necessw:v prioritization based on the availability of' 

personnel and other resources. I agree to reply 10 any reasonahle requesifhr informationfi·om 

rhe Ranking :Hemher <({any duly eon.willlled commiftee of the Congress. 

22. If continued, do you agree without reservation to reply to any reasonable request for 

infhnnation from members of Congress? 

lfconjirmed in accordance wilh !he relel'ant opinions <if' the O[fice of' Legal Counsel o(!he 

Department l(/.lustice. and subjeet/0 any necessary prioritization based on the m·ailahility of 

m•••·m'""''l and other resources, 1 agree to reply to any reasonable requestji>r infilrmationjl-<1111 

ol ( 'ongress. 

23. rr contim1cd, do you commit to take all rcasonab.lc steps to ensure that you and your agency 

complies with deadlines established f()r requested inf(mnation'? 

!{confirmed, in accordance with the relevant opinions ofthe Office of' Legal Counsel r!f'the 

f)epartment ofJustice. and within the scope ofmy awhorily as General Counsel, 1 commitlo 

take all reasonah/e steps to ensure that I and my agency comply with deadlines eswblisiled/hr 

requeswd infimnation 

24. If continncd, do you commit to protect subordinate officials or employees from reprisal or 

retaliation f(lr any testimony. briefings or communications with members of Congress? 

Yes. within/he scope of' my authorily as General Counsel. 

25. Do you agree without reservation to identify to the Committee all Presidentiai appointments 

(regardless of Senate conJirmation requirements) within the Department? Do you agree 

without reservation to allow Committee stan~ as requested, an opportunity to interview such 

appointments'! 

If confirmed. a/ the reqtwst l((/he Committee, I agree to identif.v lo the Commiflce a/! 

!'residi!nlial appointees (regardless of'Senate confirmation requireme/llsj wi!hinthr: [)epartmem. 

16 
60 

AI the request o(the Committee. 1 also agree to allow such appoinlees in the Dcpurtmenl·s 

Office oflhe General Counsel to he interviewed h)! Commitlee staff and tof(mvard any request 

from !he Commitlee to i111erview such appoin!ees servin;:; in other components qlfhe Depart men! 

10 the head(1) 11/such componenls. 

26. Jf eonlirmed, vvill you ensure that your stafTwill fully and promptly provide in!im11ation and 

access to appropriate documents and officials in response to requests made by the 

Government Accountability Onice (GAO) and the Congressional Research Service'? 

Yes. 

27. If confirmed, will you agree to work with representatives from this Committee and the GAO 

to promptly implement recommendations for improving the Departmcm's operations and 

efTectiveness'! 

!fcontirmed. f will suppon the S'ecrelary ofHomefand Security in exercising his or her authority 

to consider and implement recommendationsfi>r improving the Depart men! 's operations and 

ejkctiveness. 

28. If conllrmcd, will you direct tht' Department to fully and promptly respond to freedom of 

Information Act requests submitted by the American people? 

Ves. 

29. lf contlrmcd, will you direct your agency to not waive Freedom of lnfom1ation ;\cl under 

section 102 of the Real LD. Act lor any project or program? 

l{confirmed, i{the issue olthe applicability of/he J.i·eedom of' lnfimnalion Act to actions taken 

in pursuance orsuch pnwishm arises, J will undertake a thorou;:;h le;:;al analysis of the issue and 

advise apJiropriale ofllcia/s at D!IS accordingly. 

30. !f con!irmed, will you direct your staff to adopt a presumption of openness where practicaL 

including identifying documents that can and should be prouctive!y rcleuscd to the public 

without requiring a Freedom of lnlon11ation Acl request'! 

!'es, when such openness is practical. appropriate. and /a11:fi.tl. 

31. If <:onl1rmed, will you keep this Committee apprised or new information if it materially 

impacts the accuracy of in lbrmation your agency's officials have provided us'? 

!fconjirmed, and within the scope authority as General Counsel, I will use my best efliwl.l 

to keqJ this Commirlee apprised information ifil mu/eriai(F impacts the accuracr o( 

inihrmation that DHS officials have provided to the ( .'ommiltee. ji>r a ,.,,1wnmotP 

atier the or(e;inal pnwision ojsuch i11/iJrmation 

17 
61 

L John Marshall Mitnick, hereby stale that l have read the 

and supplementul questions und that the in!i:mnmion provided 

kno" ledge, -:uncut 11ecurate. and eompkte. 

!his 13th day of September, 2017 

!'rc·ht:aring Questionnaire 

is. to the best 

IN 
62 

Senator Steve Daines 

Post-Hearing Questions for the Record 

Submitted to Mr. John Mitnick 

Nomination of John M. Mitnick to be General Counsel 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Tuesday, October 3, 2017 

Mr. Mitnick, thank you for your testimony, your willingness to serve, and for taking the time last 

month to meet and share how, as General Counsel, you will help advice and dclend President 

Trump's efforts to secure our border and enforce our immigration laws. 

One of the greatest successes of this Administration is President Trump signaling that we are 

going to enforce our laws. This has led to quantiliable improvements at the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS), under the leadership ofGcn. John Kelly and now Acting Secretary 

Elaine Duke. Apprehension rates for illegal Southwest border crossings have dropped nearly 

30% year-to-date, compared to the same timeframe in 2016, and some months have seen an over 

60% reduction. Drug seizures have increased by some measures. And, morale and improved by 

upwards of 7%, according to Acting Secretary Duke. 

As General Counsel, how will you ensure the Department maintains this trajectory? 

Senator Daines, thank you for your kind words andfor meeting with me and considering my 

nomination. lam generally aware of" the challenges that DHS has faced in integrating its 

mullitude of" components wilh varied missions, aulhorities, and cultures, and l was very pleased 

to hear olthe improvement in morale. Having practiced law for over 28 years, and as the son 

and grandson of" attorneys, I have a strong commilment to the rule of law. As a former senior 

attorney in DHS and a former Associate Counsel to the President with responsibility/or 

homeland security legal matters, I have a strong commitment to assisting the President and the 

Acting Secretary in securing our borders while facilitating law.fitl international travel and trade. 

If confirmed, I wil/lookjiJrward to working closely with Acting Secretary Duke. the other senior 

leaders ojDHS, and my colleagues in the ()ffice of" the General Counsel to support !he dedicated 

professionals in the Department's operational components (including US. Customs and Border 

Protection, US. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and US. Citizenship and Immigration 

Services) in accomplishing our shared vital mission to safeguard the American people, our 

homeland, and our values. Ifconfirmed, I will also do my part, as one of DHS's senior leaders. 

lo promote the continued success and improving morale of/he Department by continuing my 

commitment to the leadership and manage men/ principles and practices that I described in 

response to Question 6(a) in my !'re-hearing Questionnaire. 
63 

Senator Thomas R. Carper 

Post-Hearing Questions for the Record 

Submitted to Mr. John Mitnick 

Nomination of John M. Mitnick to be General Counsel 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Tuesday, October 3, 2017 

1. In order for Congress to fulfill its constitutional duty to conduct oversight, members 

of Congress must able to receive testimony, briefings and other information from the 

executive branch upon request. To ensure that you and your agency fulfills its 

obligations to respond to congressional inquiries in timely and comprehensive 

manner, we ask the following: 

Yes. 

a. If confinned, do you commit without reservation to make any subordinate official 

or employee available to appear and testii)r before, or provide information to, 

committees of Congress? 

b. If confirmed, do you cornn1it without reservation to respond in timely 1mnner to 

all congressional inquiries and requests for information from members of 

Congress, including request from members in the minority? 

If confirmed, in accordance with the relevant opinions of the Office (![Legal Counsel of 

the Department r>f'Justice, and subject to any necessary prioritization based on the 

availability of personnel and other resources. I agree to respond in a timely manner to all 

congressional inquiries and requestsfor informationfrom Members of Congress, 

including requests fi'om Members in the minority. 

c. If confirmed, do you commit without reservation to take all reasonable steps to 

ensure that you and your agency complies with deadlines established for 

requested information? 

!{confirmed, in accordance with the relevant opinions oft he Office of Legal Counsel o{ 

the Department of Justice, and within the scope of my authority as General Counsel, I 

commit to take all reasonable steps to ensure that 1 and my agency comply with deadlines 

established for requested information. 

d. If confinned, do you commit without reservation to protect subordinate ofilcials 

or employees from reprisal or retaliation for any testin1ony, briefings or 

communications with members of Congress? 

Yes, within the scope of my authority as General Counsel. 

1 
64 

2. In response to GAO recommendations, the Department has stated that it would 

develop performance meastrres that that clearly meastrre the effectiveness of the 

EINSTEIN deployed to monitor federal networks and prevent cyber attacks. In a 

letter I received in March of2016, the Department committed to having the 

performance metrics in place by March 31, 2017. Please provide an update on the 

status of the performance metrics. 

At this time, I do not have access to the information that I would need to review in order 

to respond to this question. If confirmed, I will look into this matrer. 

In the past, I've expressed concerns about the pace of deployment of the most 

advanced version ofEINSTEIN, EINSTEIN 3 Accelerated or E3A, across the federal 

government. Has the system been fully deployed and docs the Department have the 

authority it needs to fulfill its mission to protect federal networks and ensure the latest 

protective technology is in place at every agency? 

At this time. I do not have access to the information that I would need to revinv in order 

to respond to this question. If confirmed, I will look into this matter. 

3. ln January of this year, President Trump issued a travel ban that blocks travel to the 

U.S. fi·om seven Muslim-majority countries. The roll-out caused chaos and confusion 

throughout the country as travelers, law enforcement agencies, and RJreign officials 

struggled with the implementation ofthi~ haphazard executive order. 

Since then, the President has signed two revised travel bans, even while the 

constitutionality of the original ban was scheduled to be reviewed by the Supreme 

Cotrrt. In your nomination hearing, you stated in response to a question from Senator 

Peters that you did not believe the travel bans made any mention of a specific 

religion. In fuct, the initial travel ban establi~hed a preference for members of 

religious minorities for refugee admissions; the day the travel ban was issued, the 

President stated in an interview that he would prioritiz~ admissions ofChristiail~ over 

refi1gees of other religions as part of the bail Those comments were consistent with 

remarks he had made dtrring the presidential campaign promising religious 

discrimination in admissiom to the U.S. 

If confim1ed, do you commit that you will carefully review major policy directives, 

including their context, to enstrre that we do not again witness the chaos that 

accompanied the rollout ofthe initial travel ban? 

In responding to Senator Peters' question, my intention was to express my understanding 

that nationals of specific countries, and not religious groups or people of any particular 

religious faith, were and are subject to the travel restrictions in those presidential 

documents, particularly pursuant to the Proclamation issued by the President on 

September 2-1, 2017. If confirmed, I will carefully review major policy directives, 

2 
65 

including their context, in order to provide sound, timely, and actionable legal advice. I 

will also provide such advice to other DHS senior leaders in the course oft heir 

part icipal ion in 1 he execu/ ive branch's policy development and com·dinat ion process, and 

participate in such process when and as appropriate, in order to ensure that DHS is 

engaged and eflective in executing its mission. In doing so, I will draw upon my previous 

experience in the White House Counsel's q[jice, where I drafied dozens o{executive 

orders, presidential directives, and other presidential policy documents. 

3 
66 

The llonorabk Ron Johnson 

Chainnan 

t :.s. Smatc Commitlee on Homeland Security and Clovcmmental Anirirs 

~40 DirkSL'n Senate Ofllce Building 

Washingt<m, DC :205 I 0 

lhe llonmabk Claire McCaskill 

Ranking Member 

\! .S. Scn::nc Connnitk'c on llomeland Security and Gov crnmcntal /\ffhirs 

340 Dirksen Senate Ofticc Building 

Washington. DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Johnson and Ranking Member ~kCaskill: 

September 25, 2017 

I am writing in strong support of the nomination of John M. Mitnick to serve as the General 

Counsel J(x the U.S. Department of llomcland Security (DHS). 1 have known John for over 

three years. both professionally and personally. in my capacity as a member of the Board of 

Trustees of The J-lerit~rge Foundation. During that lime, John has been tbc Senior Vice President, 

<.i.cncral CounseL and Secretary of Heritage. Because of his direct working relationship with the 

Board, I have had considerable opportunity to obscn·c John's pcrf(xmanee of his extensive 

rcsponsihilitics and to pcrsonnUy evaluate his \\·ork product, carabiliti-=s, and p(:':rsonal qualities. 

John is an outstanding la\\}Cr, an excellent manager. and a man ol"thc highest integrity and 

personal qualities. J k bas served the Board during a time when numerous Jiilicul! personnel and 

leg'd problems required resolution. In advising the Bnard John proved to demonstrate an unusual 

ability to solve probkms, provide exceptional advice, and manage difticult personalities in a way 

that rcsultcd in the sucecssfirl conclusion of the legal and managerial matters involvec!. He has 

shown a particular talent f(Jr handling critical and complex issues where legal matters and public 

atTairs intersect. 
67 

Æ 

John has had a unique experience during his prior positions that particularly fits the 

responsibilities of General Counsel for DHS. His service in the Deparunent ofJustice, the White 

House, and DHS itself has provided him with a thorough knowledge of homeland security and 

the various components of the Fe.deral Government involved in the protection of the Nation. The 

importance of sound legal counsel in addressing the many issues that national security presents 

makes the DHS General Counsel one of the key positions in the Executive Branch. Jol:m's 

extensive background, and his excellent performance in every position he has held, make him 

tmusu&lly well-qualified for the. post for which he has been nominated. 

Jolm has the ability to get along well with others and he is highly respected by superiors, 

subordinates, and peers alike. He matches superb legal prowess with commendable interpersonal 

skills and a superior work ethic. 

During my own experience, including as Attorney General of the United States, [have had the 

opportunity to recruit, hire, and promote many attomeys and executives. It is on that basis that I 

can evaluate John as one of the most capable lawyers I have known. 

For these reasons I am pleased to enthusiastically recommend John Mitnick for confirmation as 

Genera! Counsel ofDHS, where I am sure he will be an asset in the service of our Country. 

Thank you for your consideration of this recommendation. If you require any further inforination 

fl·om me, please do not hesitate to contact me at the above address. 

Very truly yours, 

Edwin Meese III 

Ronald Reagan Distinguished 

Fellow Emeritus