[Senate Hearing 111-676]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-676
NOMINATION OF HON. RAND BEERS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
of the
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
NOMINATION OF HON. RAND BEERS TO BE UNDER SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY
JUNE 2, 2009
__________
Available via http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
51-780 WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office, http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the
GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office.
Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
JON TESTER, Montana
ROLAND W. BURRIS, Illinois
MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado
Michael L. Alexander, Staff Director
Jeffrey E. Greene, Counsel
Kristine V. Lam, Professional Staff Member
Deborah P. Parkinson, Professional Staff Member
Brandon L. Milhorn, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Robert L. Strayer, Minority Director for Homeland Security Affairs
Jennifer L. Tarr, Minority Counsel
Trina Driessnack Tyrer, Chief Clerk
Patricia R. Hogan, Publications Clerk and GPO Detailee
Laura W. Kilbride, Hearing Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statements:
Page
Senator Lieberman............................................ 1
Senator Collins.............................................. 2
Senator Akaka................................................ 12
Senator Burris............................................... 14
Senator Voinovich............................................ 15
Prepared statements:
Senator Lieberman............................................ 25
Senator Collins.............................................. 27
WITNESSES
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
General John A. Gordon, U.S. Air Force, Retired.................. 3
Hon. Rand Beers to be Under Secretary, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security.............................................. 5
Alphabetical List of Witnesses
Beers, Hon. Rand:
Testimony.................................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 28
Biographical and financial information....................... 33
Responses to pre-hearing questions........................... 44
Letter from the Office of Government Ethics with an
attachment................................................. 94
Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record........... 96
Letter of Support from Hon. Michael Chertoff................. 100
Gordon, General John A.:
Testimony.................................................... 3
NOMINATION OF HON. RAND BEERS
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 2, 2009
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:35 p.m., in
room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Joseph I.
Lieberman, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Lieberman, Akaka, Burris, Collins, and
Voinovich.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN LIEBERMAN
Chairman Lieberman. Good afternoon and thanks to all of you
for coming to this hearing today for the nomination of Rand
Beers to be the Under Secretary for the National Protection and
Programs Directorate (NPPD) at the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS).
Rand Beers is a highly qualified nominee with a record of
more than 30 years of public service, dating back to his
service as a Marine in Vietnam. He has served in Democratic and
Republican Administrations, working as the Senior Director for
Combating Terrorism at the National Security Council (NSC)
during the Administration of President George W. Bush, as
Assistant Secretary of State for International Narcotics and
Law Enforcement Affairs during the Clinton Administration, and
as Director of Counterterrorism and Counternarcotics at the NSC
during the Administration of President George Herbert Walker
Bush.
More recently, Mr. Beers played a key role in the
transition at the Department of Homeland Security from the Bush
to the Obama Administrations, which by all accounts was about
as good as a transition can possibly be, and since then has
been a chief counselor to Secretary Napolitano.
If confirmed, Mr. Beers will be required to apply this
wealth of experience to harness and provide vision for the
National Protection and Programs Directorate, which includes
quite a wide variety of responsibilities, including cyber
security, infrastructure protection, foreign traveler
screening, and emergency communications. The President's fiscal
year 2010 budget proposes to expand this Directorate further by
moving the Federal Protective Service (FPS) into it.
Let me just talk about a few of the areas that I hope and I
know will be priorities, if confirmed. Cyber security is
clearly one of those. The threat of cyber attacks is an urgent
national security, homeland security challenge, as we know.
Last week, President Obama announced the results of the 60-day
review of cyber security policy and government structures. I am
grateful for the President's focus on this issue and
particularly reassured that, as the President sees it, the
Department of Homeland Security has a central role to play in
any government-wide cyber security strategy, and the NPPD is
the part of the Department that will lead its efforts in that
regard. I look forward to hearing what Mr. Beers thinks the
Department's role should be and how he will ensure that DHS has
the necessary tools to perform the job.
NPPD's critical infrastructure responsibilities are equally
challenging because the majority of the Nation's critical
infrastructure--our energy, communications, and transportation
networks, all potential targets of terrorism--are owned and
operated by the private sector. The Department must work
closely with the private sector to ascertain that the
appropriate security measures are being taken. The lesson from
Mumbai, London, and Madrid is that terrorists will seek out
soft targets, such as hotels, shopping malls, and inner-city
transit lines, so we must accelerate our efforts to harden
those targets.
NPPD also plays a critical role in our Nation's security
through the U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator
Technology (US-VISIT) program, which requires foreign nationals
to undergo biometric screening as they enter the country. The
9/11 Commission concluded that three of the September 11, 2001,
hijackers had overstayed their U.S. visas and concluded that
requiring biometric exit screening was vital to homeland
security. In fact, if we had implemented a biometric system to
detect overstays prior to September 11, 2001, there is some
reason to believe that we could have prevented the attacks of
September 11, 2001. I am very concerned that almost 8 years
later, despite the clear need for a viable biometric exit
system, we still do not have such a workable system in place.
The Committee will continue to work with the Department of
Homeland Security to ensure that a secure system is
expeditiously deployed, of course, at the Nation's airports,
and I look forward to discussing that with Mr. Beers today.
Many other challenges face the NPPD, including the future
of our chemical security regulation system, the Directorate's
challenge in hiring and retaining qualified staff, and the
overdependence, as I see it, on contractors to do what
otherwise might be considered inherently governmental work. I
look forward to working closely with the new Under Secretary to
reauthorize and strengthen the Department's Chemical Facility
Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS), the chemical security site
program.
So, bottom line, Rand Beers is a very experienced public
servant. If confirmed, he will need all that experience to be
put to use as the Director of the NPPD to protect our homeland
security.
Senator Collins.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLLINS
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I join the
Chairman in welcoming Rand Beers as the nominee today. As the
Chairman has indicated, the scope and importance of the NPPD's
responsibilities are daunting. The Directorate is charged with
ensuring successful implementation of the chemical facility
security program that was authorized in 2006 due to the work of
this Committee. This program is one that needs to be
reauthorized this year. It also is charged with assessing the
risk to our Nation's critical infrastructure, managing
voluntary private sector coordination programs to achieve the
goals of the National Infrastructure Protection Plan, leading
the Department's effort to protect our Nation against
improvised explosive devices and working to combat terrorists'
use of such explosives in the United States, and protecting the
Nation's cyber networks.
The Chairman and I have focused a great deal on that last
responsibility, cyber security. It is both critical and
complex. The complexity arises not just from the technical
nature of the issue, but from the disjointed approach that the
Federal Government has taken. In the course of the coming
months, cyber security responsibilities across the Federal
Government will be the subject of much debate as we consider
the Administration's plan and alternative legislative proposals
to strengthen our cyber security efforts.
DHS's relationships with the critical infrastructure
sectors that both provide for and rely on information
technology services will remain invaluable in ensuring a
coordinated defense against cyber attacks. I look forward to
hearing from Mr. Beers about how, if confirmed, his management
of DHS's cyber security efforts will be affected by the White
House's new cyber security initiative.
NPPD also manages programs that benefit components across
the Department, including, as the Chairman has indicated, the
US-VISIT program that screens the biometrics collected from
visitors to the United States against immigration and criminal
databases. US-VISIT has been struggling for years with
implementing a solution to collect biometric information on
foreign travelers departing the country, a responsibility that
is required by law but has not been fully realized.
Should Mr. Beers be confirmed, these are just some of the
critical challenges that are awaiting his leadership and
considerable expertise. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Lieberman. Thank you, Senator Collins.
I would like to welcome retired General John Gordon of the
U.S. Air Force, who is here to introduce our nominee. We are
honored to have you take the time to be here for that purpose,
and I call on you at this time.
TESTIMONY OF GENERAL JOHN A. GORDON, U.S. AIR FORCE, RETIRED
General Gordon. Thank you, Chairman Lieberman, Senator
Collins. Good afternoon. I am a retired Air Force officer and a
former Deputy Director of Central Intelligence, a former
Secretary of Energy, a former Homeland Security advisor, and so
I now am a rather interested observer of the national security
and homeland security scene without a lot of responsibilities,
and limited responsibilities. But today, I have the most
pleasant responsibility I have had in a while, which is to
introduce my friend and my colleague, Rand Beers, to the
Committee as you consider his nomination to be Under Secretary
of Homeland Security.
To cut to the chase, I know of no individual who is better
qualified nor anyone more suited to take on the vital task of
protection of America's critical infrastructure, as you both
have said, the central responsibility of this position. Nor in
my book is anyone more suited to be a member of Secretary
Napolitano's leadership team. I offer my unqualified and total
support for his confirmation.
Now, to be entirely transparent and with full disclosure,
Mr. Beers is a close friend and a longtime professional
colleague. We have worked together in the State Department and
in the White House for several Presidents, and even so, I do
not believe that I suffer from any lack of objectivity in
considering his suitability and qualifications for this vital
position.
First, and I do rate this first, Mr. Beers is a patriot. He
has committed his entire working life to the security of our
Nation, beginning as a Marine officer and a rifle company
commander in Vietnam, where he served 4 years. Virtually his
entire career since then has been in government, largely at the
State Department and the White House, and he always found his
true reward in the service he gave to our Nation. He is the
very model of an American committed to good government, willing
to give his time, talent, and energy toward that end.
Mr. Beers is a man of integrity. He can always be counted
on to do the right thing, to give his objective and well-
considered advice.
Mr. Beers is proven under fire, and I refer not only to his
combat experience in Vietnam, but his ability to keep his head
and work calmly and effectively through some of the toughest
national security and foreign policy situations, and he
experienced many of these literal crises as he served in senior
positions in peacekeeping, counterterrorism, counternarcotics,
intelligence, and Middle East policy.
These items all help define the character of the man, but
can he actually do the job? Yes, I am certain he can. Mr. Beers
is certainly among the most experienced if not the most
experienced candidate for a senior position in Homeland
Security. As mentioned already, he has had huge
responsibilities in counterterrorism, counternarcotics,
political and military affairs, peacekeeping and intelligence,
continuously since he joined the Foreign Service in 1971. As
you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, he served four Presidents in the
National Security Council.
Most recently, Mr. Beers has had the opportunity, I think,
to reflect a bit about his experiences and about how the
complex issues of national and homeland security all fit
together, or at least how they should fit together. For several
years, he was President of National Security Network, an
organization that he founded to bring together experts seeking
to foster discussion of progressive national security ideas. At
the same time, he was an adjunct professor at the Kennedy
School of Government at Harvard. My sense is that this time of
reflection, observation, and teaching has given him a new and
broader perspective of the national homeland security, along
with a renewed commitment to the urgent task ahead, as well as
a deeper appreciation of the long-term strategic goals we must
achieve.
If confirmed, we can expect Mr. Beers to immediately be
effective with no spin-up time needed. He co-led the transition
team, as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, at the Department for the
incoming administration where he really looked into every
aspect of the new and still evolving Department. And today, he
serves as counselor to Secretary Napolitano, advising her on
the full breadth of the Secretary's mission. I suspect he has
identified no shortage of issues worthy of his time and effort,
and I commend the list that both of you put forward, headed in
many ways by cyber security in addition to the more standard
infrastructure protection items.
Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned at the outset, I am not an
entirely disinterested observer in this nomination before the
Committee today. The Department needs the very best leadership
and the full commitment of true professionals as it comes of
age and reaches its full stride in what are still very
dangerous times, and the country needs the very best to take on
these tough jobs. Rand Beers is one of the very best, and I
respectfully commend him to the Committee to become Under
Secretary of Homeland Security. Thank you.
Chairman Lieberman. Thanks very much, General Gordon. We
honor you as a former advisor here. The statement was a very
strong one on Rand Beers' behalf, and we thank you for your
service.
We know that you are busy. If you would like to stay, we
would be happy to have you. If you need to depart, we
understand that and send you off with our thanks.
General Gordon. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Lieberman. Rand Beers has filed responses to a
biographical and financial questionnaire, answered pre-hearing
questions submitted by the Committee, and has had his financial
statements reviewed by the Office of Government Ethics. 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's
offices.
Mr. Beers, our Committee rules require that all witnesses
at nomination hearings give their testimony under oath, so I
would ask you to please stand at this time and raise your right
hand.
Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give is
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help
you, God?
Mr. Beers. I do.
Chairman Lieberman. Thank you, and please be seated. We
would be happy to hear an opening statement at this time and
would welcome also, of course, the introduction of any family
or guests you have with you.
TESTIMONY OF HON. RAND BEERS \1\ TO BE UNDER SECRETARY, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Beers. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Senator
Collins. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before your
Committee for confirmation. I want to thank the President of
the United States for nominating me and Secretary Napolitano
for recommending my nomination to the President.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Beers appears in the Appendix on
page 28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I also want to take this opportunity to introduce the
members of my family, without whom I surely would not be here.
First, my wife, Bonnie Beers, my son, Nathaniel Beers, and my
brother, Chuck Appleby, who have all come here to stand behind
me. In fact, my brother has flown all the way from Vienna,
Virginia. [Laughter.]
Sir, as you and others have said, I have spent about 36
years of my life working for the U.S. Government, and it is a
profession that I feel honored to have been part of, and I am
grateful for the opportunity with the President's nomination
and hopefully with your confirmation to continue to serve the
government in some capacity. The position for which I have been
nominated is at the center of protecting America in the 21st
Century, and I hope that my experience has prepared me amply in
order to undertake this. The areas of responsibility, starting
with cyber, are indeed serious and challenging.
As the President said on Friday, this is a challenge which
has serious threats to the very national security of our
country and requires a major response. The President has
afforded the notion that the White House would have a
coordinating function, but that the departments and agencies
would continue to be responsible for the implementation of that
policy. And as you all are aware, DHS has a major role both in
the civilian side of the U.S. Government and in the private
sector for drawing together the best defensive measures and the
best partnership to make this Nation's cyber infrastructure
secure. For that civilian side of this ledger, I am a firm
supporter and believer and believe that DHS is the logical
place for that responsibility to reside.
With respect to infrastructure protection, it is and
represents the core of our post-September 11, 2001, protection
system, with the 18 Sector Coordinating Councils, the four
Cross-Sector Councils, as you mentioned, the National
Infrastructure Protection Plan and the Sector Security Plans,
which are now underway, the Bomb Prevention Unit, and, of
course, the chemical section.
US-VISIT is at the heart of our identity management for
U.S. visitors and immigrants and as such is linked not just to
several of the elements within the Department of Homeland
Security, but with the Departments of State, Justice, and
Defense, as well. And DHS has two very important pilots in this
area about which you have spoken, the Air Exit and the Land
Exit programs, with which we will be working if I am confirmed.
And finally, the Risk Management and Analysis Office, which
represents the brain trust for risk management tools and
concepts to help the Department decision makers make the best
possible decisions against the risks that we have using the
resources, both monetary and personnel, to meet them.
We also have, as you mentioned, the possibility of the
Federal Protective Service becoming part of NPPD, should
Congress pass the required legislation for its shift. That,
too, represents an important addition to the infrastructure
protection responsibilities of NPPD.
I think in my briefings in NPPD that it will be an exciting
place to work, with very talented people facing enormous
challenges with great opportunities, and I hope that the
Committee will give me the opportunity to be part of that team
in confirming me as the Under Secretary.
Thank you very much, and I stand open to your questions.
Chairman Lieberman. Thanks very much, Mr. Beers.
I am going to start my questioning with the standard three
questions we ask of all nominees. First, is there anything you
are aware of in your background that might present a conflict
of interest with the duties of the office to which you have
been nominated?
Mr. Beers. No, sir.
Chairman Lieberman. 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. Beers. No, sir.
Chairman Lieberman. And finally, do you agree without
reservation to respond to any reasonable summons to appear and
testify before any duly constituted committee of Congress if
you are confirmed?
Mr. Beers. I do, sir.
Chairman Lieberman. Thank you. We are going to start with a
round of questions of 7 minutes each.
Mr. Beers, let me just get some old business out of the way
before we get to the new business and just do so for the open
record here. As you know, questions have been raised about
something that happened when you were on the NSC staff. In
1996, you received a preliminary briefing regarding efforts by
the Chinese government to influence congressional elections in
the United States that year. The briefing you received later
became a point of contention between the White House and the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), in part because your
superiors were not informed about the briefing at the time it
occurred.
I wanted to ask you at the outset here if you could set
that experience in context and really to ask a question in a
way with the hardest edge to it. Is there any reason why your
involvement in that should lead the Members of the Committee to
have second thoughts about confirming your nomination?
Mr. Beers. Senator, thank you for the opportunity to speak
on the record about this. I have not to this point spoken on
the record about this issue with the exception of the
questionnaire, which you all asked me to fill out, and I
welcome this opportunity to correct some of the
characterizations and misstatements that occurred in that
public discussion.
I was serving as the Senior Director for Intelligence
Programs in the National Security Council staff. One of the
responsibilities of the Senior Director was to be briefed on a
regular basis by the Federal Bureau of Investigation with
respect to counterintelligence activities that the Bureau had
responsibility for. In the summer of 1996, I was briefed along
with my FBI assistant by two FBI agents about a new activity
that they were looking at concerning, as you mentioned, the
possibility that the Chinese government was seeking in some way
to influence congressional elections. The briefing itself was
very preliminary, very sketchy, very limited in detail. The
Bureau was unable to tell me if they had identified any
individual Members of Congress or any particular congressional
races that were being focused on, and the answer to that was
that they were not.
As a result of that, I determined that there was not a
great deal of information available but that it was something
that I should continue to monitor and asked that I continue to
be informed about further developments in that process.
Later on that year, there was a public controversy about
Chinese efforts to influence the reelection of President
Clinton and Vice President Gore, and in the course of the media
discussion of that, this particular piece of information and
briefing got swept up in the broader discussion, although I
must say some of the media reporting suggested that this
particular briefing actually referred to the presidential
election rather than, as you stated, congressional elections.
Chairman Lieberman. But there was no reference to the
presidential election in that briefing that you received?
Mr. Beers. None whatsoever, sir. And as a result of that,
Sandy Berger, who was then the National Security Advisor,
together with the White House General Counsel, launched an
investigation to find out what was known, what was not known,
how it had come to pass.
In the course of that particular investigation, my
colleague indicated that it was his recollection that the FBI
told us that we were not to brief more senior members of the
White House staff. I indicated that I did not remember that
particular injunction, and I indicated that had that particular
injunction been communicated to me, I would have ignored it had
I thought that the information was significant enough that more
senior members, particularly the National Security Advisor,
needed to be briefed of that.
That particular piece of information came to the media's
attention and those remarks about not being permitted to brief
up were attributed to me. The FBI then indicated that in no way
were those briefers ever instructed to make that kind of
statement, and that became part of the media swirl about all
this. But I was asked not to talk to the press during that
period, so I never had an opportunity to correct the record
with respect to my own involvement in that.
In retrospect, looking back, I certainly think that my
judgment at the time would probably have been better served had
I briefed Anthony Lake, but that was my judgment, and I have to
accept responsibility for that.
As a result of that, Sandy Berger gave me a verbal
reprimand in the spring of 1997, and that was, as far as I
know, the end of the matter, and it was not a subject of my
previous confirmation hearing.
Chairman Lieberman. I appreciate that very much. So as I
hear it, in addition to nothing being mentioned about the
presidential election, the reason you did not report up was
that this was one of a number of items that the FBI was
briefing you on at that meeting, is that right?
Mr. Beers. That is correct, sir.
Chairman Lieberman. And that the level of the briefing was
general or vague?
Mr. Beers. Yes, sir.
Chairman Lieberman. Obviously, everybody has to make their
own judgments, but certainly for myself, that is no obstacle to
supporting your nomination.
I am heading to the end of my time, but let me just take us
to cyber security. There was a lot of concern, certainly on
this Committee and I hope more broadly, that the review and
change in policy that we thought might be forthcoming from the
President last week might undercut the role of the Department
of Homeland Security. I was personally very relieved to see
that it did not happen, at least not in what I read. Of course,
for me, the reason is not just turf, it is that this is a very
critical element of Homeland Security and it will continue to
be so for some time to come, to protect both our non-defense
Federal cyberspace and the private sector that DHS has a
primary responsibility for.
Just give me your reaction. You were inside--am I reading
it right? Do you feel that the role of the Directorate you
would head, if confirmed, in the Department is being at least
sustained, if not strengthened, and that you will not be
undercut by the Cyber Security Coordinator in the White House?
Mr. Beers. Yes, sir, that is my understanding as recently
as this morning in a conversation with John Brennan that I had
before I came up here for my confirmation hearing.
Chairman Lieberman. Yes, on both counts?
Mr. Beers. On both counts, that is correct. There was no
realignment of roles and missions of the Department, and it is
the view in the White House that the Department of Homeland
Security will continue to play an absolutely essential role in
the protection of America's cyber infrastructure.
Chairman Lieberman. Very good. Thank you. Senator Collins.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to go back to the issue in 1996 on the briefing that
you received from the FBI agents who alerted you to the
interest of Chinese operatives in influencing our congressional
elections. I was not clear from your answer to Senator
Lieberman whether you were saying that the FBI briefers told
you not to report the information up the chain.
Mr. Beers. Senator Collins, I do not remember being told
that. My colleague is the person who stated that, but to the
best of my memory then and to this day, I remember nothing with
respect to any limitations on our ability to inform seniors--
that would have been the National Security Advisor and the
Deputy National Security Advisor in this case--due to the
nature of the briefing.
Senator Collins. That leads me to ask you why you did not
report the information. I know you said in response to a
question from Senator Lieberman that this was one of many items
and that it was not that specific, that it was vague reporting,
but it seems to me that any report that a foreign country was
trying to influence elections in the United States would cause
you to bring that information to the attention of either the
Deputy National Security Advisor or the National Security
Advisor. So I am trying to better understand why you decided
not to.
Mr. Beers. Senator, if I thought that there was a program
to try to influence the election that was known to be underway,
I would have briefed my superiors. It was not clear to me from
that briefing that this was not more than chatter with respect
to an idea. But because they were unable to brief me on any
specific targets or any more detail other than the notion that
there was a notion that the Chinese might be thinking about
doing something like this, I felt that it was in the nature of
a preliminary briefing and I wanted to have more information
before I briefed more senior people.
Senator Collins. Did you follow up on the briefing to ask
for additional briefings?
Mr. Beers. Yes, ma'am, I did ask for additional information
at that briefing. By the time this issue became a media
discussion, I had not had an opportunity for a second follow-up
on my own behalf. My colleague did talk to them, or at least I
understand that he did talk to the Bureau about any additional
information, but I was not privy to any details that there was
any more information at that point in time.
Senator Collins. By your colleague, are you talking about
the FBI detailee assigned to you?
Mr. Beers. That is correct.
Senator Collins. So you did, at the conclusion of this
briefing, ask your detailee to follow up and report back to you
if there were subsequent developments?
Mr. Beers. I asked both my colleague and the Bureau
briefers to do the same.
Senator Collins. And there never was further reporting to
you?
Mr. Beers. No. In fact, I never saw any further reporting
on that subject.
Senator Collins. So later that same year, the contributions
by Chinese nationals to the presidential campaign, the Clinton-
Gore campaign, became a major issue, in fact, had led this
Committee to do a major investigation. At that time, did you
then recall the briefing that you had had indicating that there
may have been an attempt by the Chinese to influence
congressional campaigns?
Mr. Beers. I did, and I spoke to the NSC Counsel at that
point in time.
Senator Collins. And was it at that point that Sandy Berger
said to you, you should have brought this to our attention
earlier?
Mr. Beers. That is the point at which Mr. Berger and the
White House General Counsel sought more information on what we
knew.
Senator Collins. Thank you. That is very helpful.
Let me follow up with Senator Lieberman's other question,
and that is on the cyber security issue. I have a lot of
reservations about the establishment of a White House cyber
security czar because it makes it far more difficult for
Members of Congress to exercise our oversight responsibilities.
We traditionally cannot call presidential advisors before the
Committee. But I am also concerned in terms of accountability.
Just this past Friday, the President announced that he is
creating the cyber czar, and then yesterday Secretary
Napolitano appointed a number of individuals within the
Department of Homeland Security with cyber security
responsibilities. In your testimony, you stated that the
Directorate's overarching mission is to mitigate the risk to
the Nation's cyberspace by cyber criminals and nation-states.
So you have the cyber czar within the White House. You have
a Director of the National Cyber Security Center within DHS.
You have the head of the National Cyber Security Division. You
have the Assistant Secretary for Cyber Security and
Communications. And you have your position. So my question to
you, Mr. Beers, is who is in charge?
Mr. Beers. Senator Collins, thank you for that question. I
think that it is an absolutely appropriate question. What
Secretary Napolitano has sought to do in terms of aligning
responsibilities within the Department is to create as close as
possible, respecting the rules of the Senate about
reorganizations of the Department of Homeland Security without
recourse to congressional approval, a single chain of command
that ends with the position of the Under Secretary for National
Protection and Programs, which if you confirm me would be me.
Working for me will be a respected cyber security individual,
Philip Reitinger, who is already appointed the Deputy Under
Secretary for NPPD, but is now also dual-hatted as the Director
of the National Cyber Security Center. Under him would be the
Assistant Secretary for Cyber Security and Communications, and
under him would be the office within that assistant
secretaryship which carries out the specific and detailed and
operational functions within the Department.
We believe that with respect to the individuals who are
already in place or who are now named, we are assembling the
strongest possible team that DHS could put together in order to
give you and the country some assurance that DHS is here to do
whatever it can, within the law, obviously, to protect
America's cyber infrastructure, and I would hope that you would
confirm me to be a part of that team.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Lieberman. Thanks, Senator Collins.
If I may, with Senator Akaka's permission, that was a
really important question that Senator Collins asked you. I was
going to ask it myself in a second round. To me, your answer
was clear, which is that if you are confirmed, you will be in
charge of the cyber security effort for the Department of
Homeland Security.
Mr. Beers. Yes, sir.
Chairman Lieberman. Can I ask just one more quick question?
On the so-called cyber czar in the White House, not yet named,
do I understand correctly that the position will have no
operational authority?
Mr. Beers. That is my understanding, as well, sir. That was
the discussion that went through the review study, as I was
able to ascertain, and it will be a coordinating function in
the tradition of the National Security Council staff, or now
the National Security staff based on the new reorganization.
Chairman Lieberman. Right. And what the new Cyber Security
Coordinator will be coordinating is the work that you will be
doing, that the NSA will be doing, that the Department of
Defense will be doing. Have I left any big ones out?
Mr. Beers. Yes, sir, you have. The Department of the
Treasury, the Department of Commerce----
Chairman Lieberman. Right.
Mr. Beers [continuing]. And the Department of Justice would
be three other major participants in this, as well as the rest
of the civilian side of the government. As you will recall, the
National Cyber Security Center and the Department of Homeland
Security Cyber Security and Communications Office are together
working to provide a defensive system to protect the U.S.
Government from cyber intrusions. That will require our working
with all of those cabinet departments and agencies, and
sometimes, I am sorry to say, we need help from the White House
in order to get people to play in the same sandbox.
Chairman Lieberman. Understood. Thank you.
Senator Akaka, thanks for being here.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am glad
to be here and add my welcome to Mr. Beers and also welcome his
family, wife, son, and brother to this hearing.
Mr. Beers, looking over what you have consented to do, you
have a tremendous position, a tremendous job, and tremendous
challenges before you. As Under Secretary for National
Protection and Programs, your charge will be to take proactive
steps to protect our national infrastructure and resources, and
that is a huge undertaking. I am pleased with your focus on
resiliency in your approach to strengthening homeland security,
as well as your interest in working with partners. That is
another part of your position, to work with other parts of the
government at all levels, as well as the private sector. So, in
looking at all of this, my feeling is that you are going to be
all over the place in homeland security, but I am hopeful that
you will address the human capital and management challenges
within NPPD so that the Directorate can meet its operational
requirements. All in all, I feel that your job is hugely
operational.
In your response to the Committee's policy questions, you
stated that NPPD's most significant challenge to accomplishing
its mission is its ability to hire enough highly qualified
employees to meet the rapidly growing demands on the
Directorate. So my question to you is, what is your overall
approach not only to recruiting these workers, but also to
training and even retaining them?
Mr. Beers. Senator, thank you for that question. It is
truly the first challenge, if I am confirmed, that I will face,
and I have thought about it. I have been briefed about it. I
have talked with my colleagues about it. Philip Reitinger has
already begun some of the process that we need to put in place
in order to bring people on board.
We have no absence of people who apply for the positions.
We have no absence of people who are fully qualified for the
positions. We have a problem with the process for actually
taking them on board, and that represents the challenge that he
has begun and that I hope I might be permitted to continue. In
particular, we have to look very carefully at all of the
processes leading up to the job offer and the security
clearance, and that means that the processes for posting the
positions, reviewing the individuals who are considered
qualified, and selecting those for hiring are done in an
expeditious fashion, and they have not been always done as
quickly as they might be, and Mr. Reitinger has taken that task
on.
We have discussed further what more might be done with
respect to the security clearance process, not to make the
clearance less serious or robust, but to determine whether or
not we are putting ourselves in a bind with respect to the
over-classification of some of the positions, that is,
positions where it might be nice to have a ``top secret''
clearance, but the ``top secret'' information would only be
necessary in very rare occasions, or whether or not for those
individuals who have clearances from other agencies there might
be a better arrangement in order to at least grant interim
clearances while the full background was done by the Department
of Homeland Security, if in fact that was even necessary.
This was one of the things that the 9/11 Commission looked
at in terms of the granting of clearances in the U.S.
Government and the stovepipe system that currently exists, and
it is certainly one that I want to examine with my colleagues
if I am confirmed and one that I know the Office of the
Director of National Intelligence is also interested in. So I
think that there are opportunities to move from the current
level of Federal employees to a higher level in a much shorter
period of time than it has taken to get to the level that we
are at at this particular point in time, and I regard that as a
major challenge.
Senator Akaka. Well, I am glad to hear that you look upon
that as an opportunity. This is one area where we have been
lacking. Senator Voinovich and I, he is the champion, have been
working hard on human capital over the years, and for good
reason, and we are still working on it. So your work on human
capital would certainly help, and I hope, as you said, you look
upon it as an opportunity.
I am pleased that you see the need to convert some contract
work into career civil service positions to ensure that NPPD
has the internal capacity to perform its core functions and
that contractors are not performing inherently governmental
work. In particular, your response to the Committee's policy
questions noted that contract employees are currently serving
as NPPD's Directors for Resource Administration and Human
Capital. In my opinion, these seem to be inherently
governmental functions. What is your timeline for converting
these and other contract positions into civil service
positions?
Mr. Beers. Sir, it is my intention to move as quickly as I
possibly can to make those conversions, recognizing that it is
not always a one-for-one replacement. But with respect to
inherently governmental functions, I want to move as quickly as
possible to put in place Federal employees, recognizing that
the contracting function that the Department and NPPD has may
not allow the termination of the contract without financial
penalties. We will have to look at all of those considerations
in how we move forward, but I do not believe that it has to be
a restriction in terms of bringing on board the right people
for the right positions as Federal employees. So as a general
answer, we will move as quickly as possible to bring people in.
How quickly we can terminate the contractors and replace them
will depend on the contract itself and the financial
obligations of the contract.
Senator Akaka. Well, thank you very much for your
responses, Mr. Beers.
Chairman Lieberman. Thank you, Senator Akaka. Senator
Burris, welcome.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BURRIS
Senator Burris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Collins.
I would like to welcome Mr. Beers before the Committee as
we consider his nomination for Under Secretary for the
Department of Homeland Security and the National Protection and
Programs Directorate. Mr. Beers, from what I have read, you
have a remarkable career in public service, and I was really
impressed with that. I am glad to see you continuing to want to
serve. Your background and demonstrated expertise in the field
of national security will serve you well if you are confirmed.
I heard Senator Akaka just ask a couple of questions that I
was going to ask, so let me switch back further in my notes and
see if we can get you to answer this question.
You stated that although you believe the organization of
the National Protection and Programs Directorate allows it to
complete its mission, you would review its structure, if
confirmed. Are there any specific aspects of the National
Protection and Programs Directorate that you can identify at
this point that will yield greater efficiencies? Would a review
of the organizational structure be an immediate priority?
Mr. Beers. Sir, I have looked at the Directorate. We have
actually focused on one of the major changes that I would make,
which is not so much organizational, although it would result
in a different culture, and that is, move from the 50 percent
level of contract employees present in our offices and move in
the direction of a much higher percentage of Federal employees
as quickly as possible.
With respect to organization and reorganization, the
Department has put forward in the appropriation for fiscal year
2010 a major reorganization move which would move the Federal
Protective Service from Immigration and Customs Enforcement to
the National Protection and Programs Directorate. That would be
a major reorganization, if approved. There are over 1,000
Federal law enforcement officers within the FPS, and they
supervise over 15,000 contract employees which have been part
of the Federal system of protecting our Federal buildings, from
cabinet agencies to courthouses, around the country. That would
represent a major change in both the size and management
challenges. The Directorate has already begun a series of
discussions and seminars with the Federal Protective Service so
that if Congress approves that change, we would be ready to
move as seamlessly as possible to including them within the
NPPD umbrella.
Beyond that, I have some ideas that I have been tossing
around in my mind, but sir, I have to say I have been around
government long enough to know that, first, there is a whole
lot of difference between observing an organization from the
outside and observing an organization from the inside, and I am
reluctant to go entirely on my preliminary visions about what I
might be prepared to do.
And second, sir, I want to be able to talk to the employees
specifically about this. I do not want them to hear about my
thinking about reorganization without an opportunity to talk to
them. So beyond the FPS proposal, there are some ideas that I
have, but I would prefer not to talk about them publicly until
I----
Senator Burris. It sounds like to me, Mr. Beers, that you
are going to do the reverse. It was always contracting
services. Government is contracting everything out. It looks
like to me you are saying that you will look at, when those
contracts expire, hiring some of those people who have been
working for the contractor and bringing them back into the
government. Where else are you going to get the talent and
experience to bring these people in? There would be a timetable
involved if you were to use individuals who are not experienced
and currently working with the contractor, would that not be
so?
Mr. Beers. Sir, we have right now a hiring program for
approximately 500 individuals. A number of those individuals
would come on as chemical inspectors. A large other number
would come to work in our National Cyber Security Division. We
have had no dearth of applicants from the private sector,
retired government officials, retired military and law
enforcement officials, people who do come out of the
contracting world----
Senator Burris. Well, now, if they are retired officials
and they are on a pension, would they come back and have to
deal with their pension arrangements with the Federal
Government?
Mr. Beers. It depends on what system they were under, sir.
If they were in the military, they would be permitted to
receive a second government salary in addition to their
pension. If they were with a law enforcement agency, some of
them would be permitted to come back and have a second
contract. If they were like me, and I am a pensioner, sir, no.
You get just your government salary.
Senator Burris. So are you telling me you are giving up
your pension to come back?
Mr. Beers. Yes, I am giving up my pension, but the amount
of money I would receive if I am confirmed will be larger than
my pension----
Senator Burris. OK.
Mr. Beers [continuing]. Although my pension is a very
generous pension for 36 years of government service.
Senator Burris. I would imagine so. That is a great deal of
service. Thank you very much, Mr. Beers.
Mr. Beers. Thank you, sir.
Senator Burris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Lieberman. Thanks, Senator Burris. Senator
Voinovich.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR VOINOVICH
Senator Voinovich. First of all, Mr. Beers, I think that we
are lucky to have someone like you with experience and
background who is interested in continuing to serve our
country. Thank you for your willingness to do that.
Mr. Beers. Thank you, sir.
Senator Voinovich. When you are confirmed, you will oversee
efforts to develop and implement a biometric entry and exit
system, which Congress has been calling for since the PATRIOT
Act was enacted back in 2001 and which the 9/11 Commission
called an essential investment in national security. You have
said that ``implementing an effective air entrance and exit
solution,'' would be one of your top priorities, if confirmed,
but I notice that you excluded the word ``biometric'' from your
description. Will implementing a biometric air entry and exit
system be a priority for you?
Mr. Beers. Yes, sir, and I regret that I neglected to use
the word ``biometric.'' It was certainly in my mind when I
reviewed the answers to those questions and signed the
statement. Yes, it will be biometric, sir.
Senator Voinovich. Recently, I met with the head of another
DHS component, and he told me that he believes implementing a
biometric air entry and exit system would be cost prohibitive.
Do you agree with that assessment, and why or why not? Maybe
you have not been around long enough to be able to answer that,
but this is a pretty high up person, and he said that it would
be prohibitive.
Mr. Beers. Sir, if the solution selected involves using
U.S. Government employees to implement such a system, we would
have to come back to the Congress with a budget proposal that
would allow us to undertake those responsibilities. We are
currently looking at the pilot program. When we have the
results from that pilot program and are ready to make a
selection between an airline implementing solution or a
government implementing solution, we will also do our homework
to talk about what the cost would be, and we will come back to
you with that.
Senator Voinovich. Now, I think----
Mr. Beers. Whether it is cost prohibitive or not, I am not
in a position at this point in time to tell you because we have
not actually run the numbers in a hard fashion for that
particular option.
Senator Voinovich. It is my understanding the airlines
opted out of the biometric pilot being conducted now and that
Customs and Border Protection is part of this testing and the
other group that is doing it is the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA).
Mr. Beers. That is correct, sir. The airlines declined to
participate in the test program. We will factor that into the
pilot results and make our judgments known and work with
Congress to move forward.
Senator Voinovich. Well, one of the things I would like to
point out is that there is no money requested in the budget to
actually begin implementing biometric air exit during fiscal
year 2010. I understand there is more than $20 million in prior
year funds that can be used for further biometric air exit work
in 2010, but the 2-month-long air exit pilot projects that US-
VISIT is conducting will cost more than $5 million. So $20
million will not go very far. I am concerned about the lack of
significant funding for this system because the Department's
waiver authority to bring new countries in to the visa waiver
program is linked to the creation of a biometric air exit
system. Without funding, how would we move forward in fiscal
year 2010 to meet congressional mandates to develop that
biometric air exit system?
The point I am getting at is that we have countries now
that have come into the visa waiver program, a total of eight
new ones. There are no other countries ready to come in right
now, but there may be, I think, in 2010. But the statute
provides that if the biometric air exit system is not in place,
then the Secretary authority to waive visa refusal rates
exceeding 3 percent stops. That is, you cannot bring in many
more countries, so aspirant countries go into limbo. And my
concern is that if we do go forward with biometric air exit,
and you said you think it is a good idea, then I think there
ought to be some money so that you can implement it and we do
not end up, as I say, in limbo with our visa waiver program
expansion, which is not only important to our national
security, but also to public diplomacy for this country because
there are a lot of countries out there right now that would
like to get into the program and are hoping to get in, but
without this system, they cannot be waived in.
Mr. Beers. Sir, you are absolutely right in that regard. It
would appear to me, as well, that $20 million would not be
enough to implement that kind of a program if it becomes a
government program, and that is why I said what we need to do
at the conclusion of the pilot test is come forward with, first
of all, where we think the solution ought to go and, if it is a
government program, with a way to pay for it because I am
committed to it and want to work with you and other Members of
Congress to implement that program because I believe it is
important to the security of this country.
Senator Voinovich. Well, I may call the Secretary because I
am Ranking Member on that Homeland Security Appropriations
Subcommittee and maybe we could stick some money in there so
that if you do decide to go forward with it, you have some
money to work with and we can move forward with it.
In 2007, DHS released scorecards evaluating the
interoperable communications capabilities with major cities. I
took it upon myself to visit the four cities in Ohio where
those scorecards were issued. I thought the scorecards were
terrific because they showed that we only had one city that
really was up to snuff in Ohio. The rest of them were not
there. I would like to suggest to you that those scorecards
were a great idea, and I would hope that you might revisit that
program so that we could go out and do another evaluation of
where cities are to see if they have made any improvements
because interoperability is fundamental, I think, to any kind
of response to either a natural disaster or a terrorist attack.
Mr. Beers. Sir, you and other Members of this Committee and
the Congress have made that clear to us, and I totally agree
with you that this is an absolutely vital program to protecting
America, and I look forward to working together with you and
other Members of this Committee to make that program a reality.
So you have my commitment to that.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
Chairman Lieberman. Thank you. Well done.
Let us do a second round of 5 minutes each, if Members have
additional questions.
Mr. Beers, let me focus on the Office of Infrastructure
Protection that comes under the Directorate you have been
nominated to head, which is now, as you said, tasked with
coordinating a national program to reduce the risk to the
Nation's 18 critical infrastructure and key resources sectors.
These sectors are wide-ranging and include areas such as
energy, information technology, water, and financial--really
the basis of the way we live in our country today. All of them
are critical, but obviously we have limited resources and
therefore prioritization is necessary.
I would say up until this point that the transportation and
chemical sectors have been a focus of the Department. Are there
sectors that you believe have not yet received adequate focus
and should now become added to the Department's top priority
list?
Mr. Beers. Sir, one of the major reasons that I took this
job was the cyber function that was embedded in this job----
Chairman Lieberman. Yes.
Mr. Beers [continuing]. And in that particular sector and
the cross-sector committee on cyber security, that would be one
of my major efforts in the 18 critical sectors. The second
would be the electrical sector. It is hard for cyber security
to work without electricity. It is hard for the critical
infrastructure, cyber infrastructure, to work without
electricity. So I would want to make sure that we were as
confident as we might be that those two sectors were receiving
as much attention as needed.
I do not want to in any way, however, diminish the
importance of the other sectors----
Chairman Lieberman. Sure.
Mr. Beers [continuing]. But you asked for the principal
ones that I would focus on at the start, and those are the two,
sir.
Chairman Lieberman. Well, that is a helpful and encouraging
answer. One related question is we know, of course, that today,
electricity depends on cyber systems, as well. In 2007, the
Department of Homeland Security, working with the Idaho
National Laboratory, discovered a cyber vulnerability known as
``Aurora,'' which has the potential to do really long-term
costly damage to mechanical equipment essential to the
operations of the electric sector. The reality is that if
vulnerabilities like Aurora are strategically compromised in a
coordinated manner, large portions of the United States could
be without electricity for a long period of time.
Do you believe that current efforts to secure the electric
sector from cyber attack are sufficient? If not, give us a
general idea what your plan would be to try to improve them.
Mr. Beers. Sir, you are absolutely right in referring to
that study in terms of the significant vulnerability. I do not
believe we have adequately addressed that vulnerability or
other vulnerabilities, and that is why I intend to look at the
individual protections for these data systems that serve as the
controls for the electrical grid and specifically at those
generators that were deemed to be so vulnerable. I think we
need to erect our cyber defenses not just in the U.S.
Government, but ensure that the private sector is aware of the
possibilities and takes advantage of those defenses insofar as
they can bring them to bear on the vast amount of our critical
infrastructure that is in the private sector.
Chairman Lieberman. Well, I appreciate that answer. I
appreciate what you said earlier, that cyber defense is
probably the No. 1 reason why you have taken on this
assignment. Part of the challenge obviously is how do you and
all those working with you in the Department of Homeland
Security get the private sector, which owns and operates most
of the critical infrastructure, to do what needs to be done to
protect our homeland security, particularly if it costs money
to do it at a difficult economic time.
I will come back to this with you, Mr. Beers, but I hope as
you go through these issues, if you are confirmed, at the
beginning of your service in this position, if you feel that
you need additional legislative authority to get the private
sector to do what we need them to do in the national interest,
I hope you will not hesitate to let this Committee know.
Mr. Beers. Thank you, sir. I will.
Chairman Lieberman. Thank you. Senator Collins.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to follow up on an exchange you had with Senator
Voinovich, who talked about the importance of interoperable
communications. This has been a priority of the Chairman and
mine for several years, and we made some progress, but not
enough.
Several years ago, the Integrated Wireless Network project
was begun and the goal was to create a nationwide consolidated
interoperable wireless communications system for the law
enforcement officials at the Department of Homeland Security,
the Department of Justice, and the Treasury Department. Despite
spending hundreds of millions of dollars, a Government
Accountability Office (GAO) report in December of last year
found that the program had failed, and it had failed due to a
lack of leadership within the participating agencies. In the
Department of Homeland Security's response to the GAO report,
the reason given for abandoning the joint program was ``because
the Department of Justice and DHS have different regional
priorities, a common system will not work at the national
level.'' Now, keep in mind this is after spending hundreds of
millions of dollars to achieve this.
What is your view of having an interoperable communications
system for Federal law enforcement officers regardless of which
agency they are employed by?
Mr. Beers. First of all, as a general proposition, Senator
Collins, I am committed to that objective. I think that it just
makes really good common sense. I understand that the
Department has spent a large amount of money without success,
although I am told that there was a successful test bid in the
Pacific Northwest that seemed to be operating effectively. But
you are right about the GAO report conclusion and the statement
that the Department gave you in response to that GAO report.
I am committed to looking into this. I understand that the
concept of the Emergency Communications Preparedness Center is
a hoped-for solution to this problem, but it is the kind of
thing that I am going to have to dig into if I am confirmed and
probably work further with you all in order to get the right
answer. But I am committed to getting to yes in this general
proposition. The notion that somehow we cannot find a common
solution just because different departments and agencies have
different ways of doing business is kind of the same thing that
we are wrestling with US-VISIT, which is how do you merge the
databases that different departments and agencies have in order
to have the most effective common database. And I am not saying
that it is easy, but it also seems to me that it is something
that a little bit of elbow grease and attention might be able
to resolve a little more easily than throwing up your hands.
Senator Collins. I certainly agree with you. The
Department's response to the GAO report sounds like a turf
battle to me rather than focusing on what the objectives should
be. It is certainly ironic that the Department--correctly, in
my view--has pushed State, regional, and local law enforcement
to work together on interoperable systems and yet has thrown up
its hands and apparently abandoned an attempt to have an
interoperable system across the Federal Government. So I am
pleased to hear your response, and we look forward to working
with you on that.
Let me switch to another issue, which is the chemical
security law, which as an author of that law is of great
interest to me. I read with interest that in 2006, you co-
chaired a task force on homeland security established by the
Century Foundation, which issued a report that had a chapter on
chemical site security. Now, this was before we were successful
in getting the law passed. But you have two recommendations
that are not included in the current law. One was to provide
liability protection and the other terrorism insurance premium
reductions for chemical plants that are in compliance with the
Federal chemical security regime. Do you still agree with those
recommendations, or is it something you would still pursue?
Mr. Beers. It is something that I certainly want to look at
in the context of the chemical legislation reauthorization,
although, as you know, the Administration only asked to roll
over the existing authorization in this fiscal year in order to
give ourselves in the Executive Branch time to make sure that
we had the right answer to that question.
I would certainly like to look at that, if I am confirmed,
as an element. As I said earlier, being on the inside and
looking in from the outside are two different perspectives. I
am not saying that my perspective will not change. I am not
saying that it will change. But I certainly want to take the
opportunity to look at this reauthorization and thank all of
you on this Committee for that legislation. I care deeply about
that, as indicated in that book and efforts that I undertook to
look at this issue from the time that I left government, and so
you all are to be commended for a terrific piece of
legislation.
Senator Collins. Thank you. I appreciate that. This
Committee has tried to identify gaps and emerging
vulnerabilities and pass legislation to try to get ahead of the
curve, and I will be looking forward to your recommendations. I
am aware that the Department and the Administration has asked
for a one-year extension of the sunset deadline, or the
expiration of that law, and we look forward to working with
you.
Just one final question. In your responses to Senator
Lieberman and in your responses to the pre-hearing questions,
you indicated your willingness to respond to requests for
information from this Committee. I would be remiss in my duties
as the Ranking Minority Member if I did not ask that you treat
requests from the Chairman and from the Ranking Member equally,
even though I can assure you that 90 percent of the time, those
will be joint requests and this Committee prides itself on its
bipartisan approach to these issues. But would you respond to
requests from the minority equally?
Mr. Beers. Without reservation.
Senator Collins. Thank you.
Mr. Beers. I have worked for Administrations in which the
Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch were not always led
by the same party, and I have worked when they were the same
party, and I have worked with both parties and served both
parties. I look forward to working with the minority as well as
the majority.
Senator Collins. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Lieberman. Thank you, Senator Collins.
I want to give you a special assignment, Mr. Beers, in your
review of the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards Act.
It is called CFATS, which has become pronounced in government
circles as ``see-fats.'' We can do better than that, and I am
counting on you. [Laughter.]
Mr. Beers. Thank you, sir. That is a challenge.
Chairman Lieberman. I think they have a whole unit over at
the Pentagon because in the Pentagon, this would be called
Operation Sturdy Strong Cleanup or something. [Laughter.]
Senator Burris.
Senator Burris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a
general question.
Mr. Beers, Homeland Security is a relatively new
Department. It was a conglomeration of responsibilities coming
from various other sources and agencies. If you are confirmed,
do you think that you will have a pretty good working knowledge
to pull all of those functions together and overcome all the
turf battles? Do you see any turf battles that might be
inhibiting you at this point to carry out NPPD's major
functions?
Mr. Beers. Sir, you are absolutely correct in your
characterization of the Department, and the evolution of this
bringing together of a number of different agencies from
different departments was a challenge at the beginning and
continues to be an ongoing issue. It is certainly one that
Secretary Napolitano recognized when she took over the
Department and one which she has listed as one of her five
major priorities.
There are some rivalries. There are some turf battles. I do
not believe that any of them are insurmountable, but I also
have to tell you in all candor, sir, I served much of my career
in the Department of State, and to say that there are not turf
battles in the Department of State among the offices in that
Department would be to ignore over 100 years of history in that
particular Department. So it is not always true that the
passage of time resolves all challenges, but it is certainly
one that the Secretary and I, if I am confirmed, will take on
as an important issue, to make sure that she says we have one
DHS and not 37 different entities within a Department.
Senator Burris. Yes, because I see that you are going to
take over, what is it, the FPC, or----
Mr. Beers. FPS, sir. The Federal Protective Service.
Senator Burris. Yes. So if you begin to try to move that
away, I can just see that there might be some turf problems
starting there if that were the case.
Mr. Beers. Sir, that is an interesting question because
there has been a lot of discussion about where the Federal
Protective Service would be best located, including some people
who have said that perhaps it ought to go back to the General
Services Administration from which it was plucked and put into
the Department of Homeland Security.
Senator Burris. I used to run a similar General Services
for the State of Illinois----
Mr. Beers. Yes, sir.
Senator Burris [continuing]. And have had this experience
of turf problems.
Mr. Beers. Yes, sir. When you think conceptually about what
that law enforcement agency does, protecting Federal critical
infrastructure, and the responsibility of the Infrastructure
Protection Office in NPPD, there really is, I think, an
alignment here of missions, and one of our sectors is the
Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial governmental
infrastructure. So this actually, I think, represents a good
conceptual fit. Now, if that happens, what NPPD will need to do
is make sure that the transfer from Immigration and Customs
Enforcement to NPPD is done as smoothly as possible so that the
normal turbulence associated with any kind of a move of that
magnitude does not come to be crippling to the roles and
missions of the FPS or NPPD.
Senator Burris. Mr. Beers, I want to congratulate you and
look forward to you continuing your work with public service. I
am just admiring your ability to come back and extend that
talent and commitment that we need at such a crucial time.
Congratulations to you.
Mr. Beers. Thank you, sir, for your kind words.
Chairman Lieberman. Well said, Senator Burris.
Thanks, Mr. Beers, for your testimony today, for your
willingness to serve. If confirmed, you are going to be in a
truly critical position for our homeland security, and your
entire career, fortunately for us, prepares you for it, so I
thank you for your willingness to serve again. I thank your
family for backing you up. We have almost a reflex reaction
that is quite appropriate in the Armed Services Committee of
thanking the nominees and their families. We probably do not do
that enough in the other committees, so we thank the people
behind you.
Without objection, the record for this hearing will be kept
open until 12 noon tomorrow for the submission of any written
questions or statements for the record, and we hope very much
to be able to move your nomination out of the Committee and
through the Senate as soon as possible.
Do you have anything else you would like to say in your
defense before we execute judgment? [Laughter.]
Mr. Beers. No, sir. Thank you very much for the opportunity
to appear before you and to answer your questions. It was a
pleasure.
Chairman Lieberman. Thank you. Senator Collins.
Senator Collins. Mr. Chairman, I just want the nominee to
know that I have introduced a bill to allow the reemployment of
annuitants without having their pensions offset in order to
help us attract people back into government. However, in your
case, the bill, I regret to tell you, would not apply because
it is limited to part-time work over a limited period of time,
and if all goes well, we hope that you will not be doing part-
time work when you are at the Department.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Beers. Thank you.
Chairman Lieberman. Thanks, Senator Collins.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:55 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1780.075
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
