[Senate Hearing 111-852]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-852
NOMINATIONS OF ERROLL G. SOUTHERS AND DANIEL I. GORDON
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
of the
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
NOMINATIONS OF ERROLL G. SOUTHERS TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, AND DANIEL I. GORDON TO BE
ADMINISTRATOR FOR FEDERAL PROCUREMENT POLICY, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND
BUDGET
NOVEMBER 10, 2009
__________
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
56-143 WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
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 ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
ROLAND W. BURRIS, Illinois
PAUL G. KIRK, JR., Massachusetts
Michael L. Alexander, Staff Director
Troy H. Cribb, Counsel
Kristine V. Lam, Professional Staff Member
Jason M. Yanussi, 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, 16
Senator Collins.............................................. 2, 17
Senator Bennett.............................................. 10
Senator Voinovich............................................ 13
Senator Kirk................................................. 14
Prepared statements:
Senator Lieberman............................................ 29
Senator Collins.............................................. 31
Senator Kirk................................................. 35
WITNESSES
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Erroll G. Southers to be Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security.............................................. 3
Daniel I. Gordon to be Administrator for Federal Procurement
Policy, Office of Management and Budget........................ 18
Alphabetical List of Witnesses
Gordon, Daniel I.:
Testimony.................................................... 18
Prepared statement........................................... 141
Biographical and financial information....................... 143
Letter from the Office of Government Ethics.................. 152
Responses to pre-hearing questions........................... 153
Responses to post-hearing questions.......................... 186
Southers, Erroll G.:
Testimony.................................................... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 37
Biographical and financial information....................... 39
Letter from the Office of Government Ethics.................. 66
Responses to pre-hearing questions........................... 67
Responses to post-hearing questions.......................... 99
Letters of support........................................... 108
NOMINATIONS OF ERROLL G. SOUTHERS AND DANIEL I. GORDON
----------
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2009
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in
room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Joseph I.
Lieberman, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Lieberman, Kirk, Collins, Voinovich, and
Bennett.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LIEBERMAN
Chairman Lieberman. Good morning and welcome. The Committee
today takes up the nominations of Erroll G. Southers to be the
Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security in charge of the
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and Daniel Gordon
to be Administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy
(OFPP) at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). And we are
going to begin with the nomination of Mr. Southers.
Sir, you have been nominated to administer an agency which
in very few years has grown to a large size and to be of great
importance to the American people. It is probably one of the
Federal agencies that has direct personal contact with more
citizens of our country than any other--50,000 employees, a
budget of $7 billion with a very important mission to protect
the safety of passengers and cargo traveling by air, road, or
rail.
To this job, you bring nearly three decades of experience
in public safety, homeland security, and intelligence carried
out at all levels of government and, indeed, in academia. In
your current position as the Assistant Chief of Homeland
Security and Intelligence at Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA),
you have had responsibility for the security of Los Angeles'
four area airports.
Previously, Mr. Southers taught homeland security and
public policy at the University of Southern California and
served as deputy director of the California Governor's Office
of Homeland Security. He also worked as a Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) special agent and as a police officer in
Santa Monica, California.
If Mr. Southers is confirmed to be the TSA Administrator,
he will be taking charge of an agency that I think has made
enormous strides in the last 8 years to strengthen the security
of the commercial aviation sector but that clearly must make
more progress increasing the security not only of air travel
but of other forms of transportation, particularly mass transit
including railways.
So I have several questions that I want to ask you in that
regard, but for now, it is a pleasure to welcome you here. I
appreciate that you are willing to take on this job.
Now I would call on Senator Collins for an opening
statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLLINS
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I join you in
welcoming our nominee today for the important position of being
the Assistant Secretary for the Transportation Security
Administration.
From the first day of its operation, the TSA was given a
critical assignment under extraordinary circumstances. It was
created to close the serious aviation security gaps that
allowed terrorists to board airplanes, overpower the crews in
flight, and carry out the deadly attacks against America on
September 11, 2001. Eight years later, what was once seen as a
new and fledgling agency has become an established security
presence at our Nation's airports. Every year, the TSA screens
more than 600 million airline passengers. The agency, through
its screening and security efforts, has helped to restore
America's confidence in air travel.
While progress has been made, some security vulnerabilities
persist. For example, there have been troubling reports of
undercover inspectors being able to smuggle bomb components and
weapons undetected through TSA's security checkpoints. To
respond to these troubling findings, TSA must be aggressive in
improving its screener training. It must also develop new and
innovative technologies to aid in the detection of these
threats.
The Secure Flight program is a vital component in TSA's
efforts to keep known and suspected terrorists from boarding
commercial aircraft. When fully implemented next spring, this
program will allow TSA to screen passenger names against the
government's No-Fly list.
As TSA manages the Secure Flight program, it must provide a
better mechanism for passengers who believe they have been
misidentified or put on the list in error. Our security
measures must be designed not to unduly hamper legitimate
travel while preventing access to aircraft by our enemies.
Aviation is not the only sector of transportation that
merits TSA's vigilant security efforts. The agency's mission
extends to other modes of transportation as well, including
mass transit, and that is for good reason. As the Chairman has
noted in the past, we cannot focus all of our resources on
terrorist threats to aviation alone as the threat does not stop
there. We know that the terrorists will continue to devise new
strategies to penetrate our defenses, and TSA cannot be caught
flat-footed by focusing only on the techniques that terrorists
employed in their last attack.
I want to just close my remarks by mentioning two final
points. One is, I am very impressed with the Visible Intermodal
Protection and Response (VIPR) teams. These teams bring
together Federal air marshals, TSA officers, and canine units
to conduct security sweeps at airports, seaports, and transit
stations. Two years ago, I saw them in action in demonstrations
at Maine's airports, and I was very impressed how the resources
are brought together.
Finally, we cannot forget the importance of the role that
the traveling public plays when it comes to identifying threats
to mass transit. The See Something, Say Something public
awareness campaign, which is underway I know in Los Angeles and
New York, as well as the legal liability protections that the
Chairman and I included in the 2007 homeland security law helps
to prompt individuals to come forward and report suspicious
activities.
I look forward to exploring these issues with our witness
today. The important mission of TSA will require a focused,
talented, and determined leader. The security of our Nation's
transportation system depends upon it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Lieberman. Thanks very much, Senator Collins.
Mr. Southers has filed responses to a biographical and
financial questionnaire, answered pre-hearing questions
submitted by the Committee, and 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. Southers, I think you know our Committee rules require
that all witnesses at nomination hearings give their testimony
under oath, so I would ask you at this time to please stand and
raise your right hand.
Do you swear that the testimony that you are about to give
to this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you, God?
Mr. Southers. I do.
Chairman Lieberman. Thank you very much. Please be seated.
Mr. Southers, we would now welcome an opening statement, if
you have one, and the introduction of any family or friends who
are with you today.
TESTIMONY OF ERROLL G. SOUTHERS\1\ TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Southers. Good morning, Chairman Lieberman, Ranking
Member Collins, and distinguished Members of the Committee.
Before I begin, I would like to extend my most heartfelt
sympathy and support for the victims of the shooting at Fort
Hood and their families.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Southers appears in the Appendix
on page 37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am honored to appear before you today as President
Obama's nominee to lead the Transportation Security
Administration as Assistant Secretary. It is a privilege to be
selected by the President and to receive the support of
Secretary Napolitano. I look forward to the great challenge of
continuing the exceptional work that the men and women of TSA
do in protecting our homeland.
With the Committee's indulgence, I would like to thank my
parents, James and Thelma; my wife, Caryn; and our children,
James and Maia for their love and support. I am so very pleased
that Caryn and Maia are able to join me here today.
I also must thank and acknowledge the outstanding officers
and employees of the Los Angeles World Airports Police
Department and my esteemed colleagues at the University of
Southern California.
I share Secretary Napolitano's vision that keeping our
homeland safe from terrorism is a collective responsibility in
which all Americans have a role to play. Protecting our
transportation network requires the work of many hands: TSA;
the unified resources of the Department of Homeland Security;
other Federal agencies; private industry; State, local and
tribal governments; our international partners; and most
importantly, the traveling public. By engaging these partners,
and with the oversight and guidance from Congress, we will more
effectively ensure the free movement of the American people and
the flow of commerce.
If confirmed, I know the honor of leading TSA will come
with great challenges and responsibilities. When Congress
created TSA following the terrorist attacks of September 11,
2001, it gave TSA the mission to provide for the security of
all modes of transportation. While TSA has made great strides
to fulfilling this responsibility, I fully understand that the
work will never be complete. We are challenged by a dynamic
threat and adaptive enemies who seek to harm Americans and our
way of life.
I believe that I am up to the challenge of leading TSA. TSA
and its most valuable resource, its people, need leadership. I
understand what type of leadership and support the front-line
workforce needs to execute a security mission.
For the past 30 years, I have dedicated myself to the
challenge of counter-terrorism and public safety at local,
State, and Federal levels. This has given me the important
perspective to understand how partnerships are critical to
success. The crucial need to effectively share information, be
it threat information, intelligence, coordinated response
planning, or best practices, is something I have lived with,
practiced, and experienced. If confirmed, I will bring this
same dedication and commitment with me to TSA.
Since 2007, I have served as the Assistant Chief for
Homeland Security and Intelligence for the Los Angeles World
Airports Police Department. I am proud to wear the uniform of
the airport police with the responsibility, in partnership with
TSA and other agencies, to protect the people and goods that
pass through one of the world's major airports, Los Angeles
International Airport (LAX), as well as Van Nuys Airport, one
of the busiest general aviation airports in the United States.
LAX has the largest aviation law enforcement agency in the
Nation with the largest complement of explosives detection
canine teams of any U.S. airport. LAX is also an intermodal hub
with an important nexus to surface transportation with its
nearby light rail system and transit buses.
LAX has served as an interdisciplinary laboratory in a
real-world setting for advances in risk modeling and
infrastructure protection. If confirmed, I will seek to further
develop and deploy innovative security strategies and
technologies to protect our transportation systems.
Since 2006, I have served as Associate Director of the
University of Southern California's Center for Risk and
Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events (CREATE), a DHS Center of
Excellence. My responsibilities include the development and
enhancement of special programs to provide the intellectual
underpinnings for the fight against terrorism.
I also developed the executive program on counter-terrorism
designed to challenge international counter-terrorism leaders
and enhance their analysis, coordination, and response
capabilities. My experience with the airport police and CREATE
has afforded me the opportunity to collaborate with my
international counterparts and other world experts in sharing
best practices to combat terrorism. If confirmed, I will
continue to draw on these relationships to benefit TSA's
mission.
I also had the honor to serve Governor Schwarzenegger as
the Deputy Director of the Office of Homeland Security for
California. I was responsible for counter-terrorism policy, the
protection of California's critical infrastructure in a post-
September 11, 2001, environment and participated in the
development of DHS's first National Infrastructure Protection
Plan.
If confirmed, I will serve as a key member of Secretary
Napolitano's leadership team as she continues to forge a
unified agency. Having served at both the operational level and
as a stakeholder of the Department, I hope that I will bring a
fresh perspective to fully integrating TSA operations as part
of one DHS.
Every day at LAX, I witnessed firsthand the great work of
the transportation security officers, and I understand the
challenges they face. I would be honored to serve as their
assistant secretary. I will provide them with an effective
voice within TSA while fulfilling the agency's critical
security mission. A professional, effective workforce will
further promote public confidence in TSA while enhancing our
country's resilience.
If confirmed, I hope to forge a close relationship with
this Committee and with Congress. This is a partnership, and
the threat the United States faces requires a unified effort.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Collins, Members of the
Committee, thank you again for the opportunity to meet with you
and your staff and appear before you today. I look forward to
answering your questions.
Chairman Lieberman. Thanks very much for that opening
statement, Mr. Southers. I want 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. Southers. No, sir.
Chairman Lieberman. Second, 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. Southers. No, Senator.
Chairman Lieberman. And then 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. Southers. I do.
Chairman Lieberman. Thank you very much. You are off to a
good start. [Laughter.]
Let me ask you a standard question for nominees, but it is,
I think, a relevant one. In the general sense in the area of
responsibility that you will take on, you have dealt with
responsibilities like this. You have had interactions with TSA.
As I have said, this agency has really come a long way in
the 8 years, but obviously, it has enormous responsibilities.
So my question is, what are your priorities going in, beyond
preserving the progress made? In other words, what do you see
as threats that you are concerned about that you would like to
see us better defended against?
Mr. Southers. As I mentioned in my opening statement, the
threat environment is quite dynamic, especially as it relates
to explosives and things of that nature. One of the things that
would be a challenge initially is tomorrow's threat as it
relates to some of the peroxide-based explosives. There is
technology available, and I think going forward, I might look
forward to an enhanced relationship with DHS's Science and
Technology Directorate to better identify the technology that
would be able to identify those types of threats.
Chairman Lieberman. So tell us a little about that, just
from the layman's perspective. What is the change that is
occurring and what consequences does it have?
Mr. Southers. The change that is occurring is that these
explosives are able to be put in forms that are non-metallic.
They are able to be concealed. The ingredients are readily
available, and they are quite destructive. So the challenge
then comes in being able to detect those types of explosives
with the technology and/or training, of course, before they are
introduced in the environment.
Chairman Lieberman. Yes, I appreciate your mentioning the
Science and Technology Directorate at the Department of
Homeland Security. Senator Collins and I put that into the
Department of Homeland Security when it was created. It is
comparable to an agency at the Department of Defense, and it
has been critically important to our national security to be
able to use technology to stay ahead of the threat. And we
finally have Dr. O'Toole confirmed as Under Secretary, so I am
glad you are going to be working with her.
In a somewhat similar regard, the bulk of homeland security
dollars spent on improving security within the transportation
sector have been spent on protective and defensive measures,
obviously, most significantly, personnel but also cameras,
security gates, and the like. But as you noted in response to
one of the Committee's questions submitted to you prior to the
hearing, ``Resiliency is a hallmark of effective security.''
And greater efforts should be made to enhance our capability
for the continuity of operations to maintain public confidence
in the safety and security of the transportation sector.
So I wanted to ask you to develop that a little bit. What
does resiliency in homeland security mean and what more do you
think TSA should be doing to promote or require resiliency
within the American transportation sector?
Mr. Southers. I think there are two components to
resiliency, a pre-incident component and a post-incident
component. Probably the best examples of pre-incident
resiliency that I have observed are in London and in Israel.
London has dedicated itself to a prevent, detect, deter, and
defend posture, most notably at the Royal United Services
Institute, an institute in which I have lectured on this very
subject. What they have done is engage the public, educated
them, made them more aware of the threat, and really helped
them form a very integral part of the security layer in London.
As you know, Israel has been quite successful with the same in
terms of engaging their public.
So going forward, I think what we have to do is reach out
to our public, make them more aware, better educated. There is
an active campaign now at TSA called WHY, and we are explaining
why the policies are in place, what they mean, and hoping that
people will become part of that security layer.
Of course, in a post-incident phase, we are looking at the
ability to have continuity of operations. We are engaged in two
pilot projects now from DHS at LAX focused on continuity of
operations in the event we were to have a chemical and/or
biological attack. So the ability to respond, to be resilient,
and keep our way of life going if we were so victimized is
important as well.
Chairman Lieberman. It is somber but very important, I
agree with you. As we discussed when you came in to see me, I
have had a concern. Understandably, after September 11, 2001,
we focused on the security of air travel. But there is also a
lot of people in this country who travel on buses and
particularly trains and subways. We know from events overseas
that subways, trains, have been a target of terrorists.
Usually, when we talk about this, people talk about practical
problems of applying the same kind of security systems to, for
instance, rail and subway transport as we do to aviation. But
whenever I hear that, I worry that we are accepting a level of
risk that we may not have to accept for people who are
traveling by rail or subway.
I wanted to ask you if you have any over-the-horizon
thoughts about what is possible here in terms of raising our
defenses to protect people who every day ride trains or subways
around our country.
Mr. Southers. Well, as we discussed, certainly looking at
some of the attacks that have occurred in the last decade--
London, Mumbai, and other locations--rail is certainly a
concern as well as buses. And we have to become better in terms
of our ability to be risk driven. I think the assessments of
these locations, these transmodal hubs throughout the United
States, are going to be important in terms of determining what
risk level we have.
I think it might be important to emphasize the use of VIPR
units in that kind of, if you will, enhancement of presence in
terms of deterring operations from occurring there. It has been
my experience that pre-operational planning is very dependent
upon a lack of security. And when they see a lack of presence
or a lack of effective technology, it is something going
forward. I have, however, seen a full airport-type security
measure in Shanghai before the Olympics last summer.
Chairman Lieberman. For trains or subways?
Mr. Southers. For trains.
Chairman Lieberman. Yes.
Mr. Southers. I do not know if that is an effective
measure. It certainly would slow your throughput, but it is
something that was explored and experimented with before the
games. So I think it is important here to have a presence and
deter the threat from actually looking at those locations to
target.
Chairman Lieberman. Well, I understand the practical
problems. I hope you will explore some of those alternatives,
including looking at the results from the Shanghai experience.
And, of course, we can hope that technology will improve to an
extent that we can do some kind of screening of passengers
getting on trains and subways without compromising that mode of
transportation in terms of its popularity or economic
viability.
My time is up. I thank you. Senator Collins.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Southers, a great many people whose judgment I respect
have spoken very well of you to me, including the new police
chief in Portland, Maine, who is from Los Angeles originally
and told me that he had a very high opinion of your work.
Mr. Southers. Thank you.
Senator Collins. There is one issue in your background that
I want to explore for the record with you. In your responses to
the Committee's pre-hearing questionnaire, you indicated that
you had received a letter of censure from the FBI. It was many
years ago, more than 20 years ago, but it involved your using
your official position to resolve a personal concern.
We have asked for a copy of that letter and have not yet
received it. So let me ask you some questions about the letter.
Were there any administrative sanctions imposed by this
letter or in connection with this letter?
Mr. Southers. No, there were not.
Senator Collins. And was your decision to leave the FBI
approximately 6 months later connected in any way to this
incident?
Mr. Southers. No, it was not.
Senator Collins. Was it connected to the censure that you
received?
Mr. Southers. No, it was not.
Senator Collins. You have taken responsibility for your
actions. You have acknowledged your mistake in the personal
conversation that we had in my office. It is important that the
public have confidence that government officials will not
misuse the authority that they have. There is also an issue
about access to personal information, which is directly related
to the incident at the FBI.
If you are confirmed, you are going to have access to
databases that have personal information on many individuals,
such as through the Secure Flight program, and it is going to
be important for the public to have confidence that you would
not in any way misuse your access to the personal information
in those databases.
So let me first ask you, have you ever in the past misused
your access to databases that the government maintains other
than this one incident that led to this censure?
Mr. Southers. No, Senator, I have not.
Senator Collins. And do you commit today that you will
respect the privacy and civil liberties concerns that people
have with regard to the personal information in these
databases?
Mr. Southers. Yes, Senator, I do.
Senator Collins. And do you commit that you will never use
your access to those databases to satisfy a personal concern?
Mr. Southers. Yes, Senator, I do.
Senator Collins. Thank you.
I would now like to go to a policy issue. The most frequent
interaction that the traveling public has with TSA is through
the checkpoint screenings at airports. And those of us who
travel frequently know that there seems to be an inexplicable
variation in the procedures at one airport versus another
airport. These variations do not seem to be attributable to an
increased threat level at one airport versus another airport.
And a passenger behind me in line at the Boston airport just 2
weeks ago put it very well, and he said, ``Why is it that when
I am in Los Angeles, I put my shoes in a bin, but in Boston, it
has to be directly on the screening belt?'' And there does not
seem to be any uniformity in what is done, and he was
expressing frustration about it because the screener actually
chastised him--and I overheard this--for putting his shoes in
the bin rather than directly on the belt going through the x-
ray machine.
That seems like a very minor point, and in the scheme of
things, it is. But it raises a larger issue. Should there not
be consistency in how screening is done from airport to airport
absent some threat level at a particular airport that would
cause for a variation?
Mr. Southers. Senator, you are absolutely correct. And you
are speaking to the public confidence issue, which was raised
earlier, that is eroded when, in fact, those policies and
procedures are inconsistent. I think what is necessary here,
obviously, first is a training issue nationwide that is
consistent from airport to airport for those procedures that
given the absence of risk or intelligence should be the same.
Second is a management in place that is going to support
staff when they make those decisions when anomalies occur or
when prohibited items are discovered. And then third,
leadership, of course, if confirmed, that I would take
responsibility for, to see to it that those practices are in
place, that training is in place, and that their compliance is
carried out in a method that makes our efficiency of our system
enhanced.
Senator Collins. Thank you. I think it is a training issue.
I also think it is a leadership problem and a communication
problem because there do appear to be inconsistent procedures,
and I think that is something that you could remedy.
I want to move next to an issue which I hear a lot about
from constituents, both pro and con, largely con. And that is
an area that Secretary Chertoff identified as a significant
unaddressed vulnerability, and that is the potential for
terrorists to use general aviation aircraft to smuggle a weapon
of mass destruction into the country or to use the airplane
itself as a weapon. And as part of its effort to address this
vulnerability in October 2008, TSA proposed a set of security
regulations for general aviation aircraft, and these
regulations would impose significant changes to the way that
general aviation operates today.
I have heard a lot of complaints, also, about those
proposed regulations, that they are not practical for small
airports where general aviation may be landing, that they are
too burdensome, that they will lead to unnecessary expense.
It is my understanding that these regulations have
generated an astonishing 8,000 comments from stakeholders
across the country. And a common theme is that TSA did not
reach out sufficiently to the general aviation community to
tell them, look, we have a problem here; how would you suggest
that we solve it, and involve them more in a negotiated
rulemaking rather than a top-down approach of just imposing
regulations that may not be very practical.
What is your response to that concern?
Mr. Southers. Well, Senator, you are absolutely correct.
And, certainly, stakeholder input is critical to establishing
effective collaborations so we can address an item like this.
As I mentioned earlier, I have three general aviation
airports that I am currently responsible for. And what we have
tried to do is, if you will, mitigate some of the risk
presented by those aircraft there in a couple of ways. First,
we have reached out to educate the stakeholders at those
airports about the threat they face and made them more aware.
We have also given them an opportunity to participate in a 24-
hour general aviation hotline for those anomalies, those
persons that might be suspicious, those activities that might
be suspicious, so that they can feed into our intelligence
system, and then that information is provided to the fusion
centers in the area. And most importantly, we have been able to
move resources in the way of VIPR teams and canine teams to
those airports on a random basis to present a different
picture, a different view, if you will, to a would-be attacker
so that our security posture is not seen as static or the same.
So those have been the deterrents that we have been
successful with in the Los Angeles area and that I would look
forward to, if confirmed, bringing to the national scale.
Senator Collins. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Lieberman. Thank you very much, Senator Collins.
Senator Bennett, good morning.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BENNETT
Senator Bennett. Good morning. Thank you very much and
welcome, sir. I appreciate your willingness to serve and take
on this responsibility.
I want to discuss an area that has given rise to some
concern in my home State, and this has to do with whole-body
imaging now known as advanced imaging technology.
Can you explain how this can improve our capability,
particularly with respect to plastic explosives and ceramic
knives?
Mr. Southers. Senator, the whole-body imaging technology
gives us the ability to identify metallic and non-metallic
objects without personal contact with the passenger. Those
items you mentioned are the ones that would be able to be
located if we had that technology. We are seeing that kind of
explosive capability around the world. The technology at
present is optional to the passenger. What is important here is
a very concerted effort on the part of TSA to balance the
security enhancements with the civil liberties and privacy
concerns of the passenger, and I think that is a delicate
balance that would have to be maintained going forward.
Senator Bennett. Yes, that was going to be my next
question.
Can you address it a little more in detail? Because a
number of people are concerned about what they consider to be
something of an intrusion when they are, in their view,
exposed, electronically naked, if not physically naked, and
there have been some serious concerns about that among some of
my constituents.
Can you get a little deeper into how you are protecting
privacy?
Mr. Southers. Well, Senator, the images that are presented
on the technology are moving toward, if you will, almost a
stick-figure-like image so that what can be identified are
those objects that are attached to the body. The operator
parameters, meaning the TSA operator parameters, are quite
strict with regard to the operator not being located near the
passenger. The medium in which the images are collected is not
stored. They are having no contact with the individual at all.
And most importantly, it is an optional screening methodology
for the passenger. If they choose not to go through it, they
would be subject to a pat-down search and wanding, if you will.
Senator Bennett. Does that mean that every passenger that
decides not to do it is going to be patted down? Because I go
through the standard magnetometer now and I do not get patted
down unless there is a little symbol of some kind on my
boarding pass that says I have been identified by the computer
as potential evil. [Laughter.]
Mr. Southers. Unless there is some detection of some kind
of threat that you might have, you would walk through the metal
detector as you do now. If you went to secondary, you would be
subject to a pat-down. But if there were no items detected by
the metal detector, you would go on as you do now.
Senator Bennett. Now, let us address the question of speed.
For those of us who are very frequent fliers, the biggest
challenge to getting to the airplane is getting through the TSA
screening. And in my observation, the biggest impediment to
getting through it quickly is the individual watching the
screen as your luggage goes through. Some individuals are much
more willing to challenge things than others, and they nit
pick, if you will, every single item that goes by, and others
almost seem not to notice the images as they go by. Both of
those make me a little nervous.
But I have found that the magnetometer is faster than the
alternative methods. If we go to the kind of screening you are
talking about here to deal with the plastic explosives and
ceramic knives and so on, and that becomes the norm with the
opt-out, the magnetometer, is that in fact going to slow things
down everywhere and thereby cause people to shun it simply
because they want the speed that would come with going through
the magnetometer and thereby cut down on your effectiveness?
Mr. Southers. Well, throughput is obviously important, but
not at the expense of sacrificing security.
Senator Bennett. Right.
Mr. Southers. The technology is improving. As I mentioned
earlier, we would hope to have a greater relationship with our
Science and Technology Directorate. We have a transportation
security integration facility at Regan Airport that tests these
technologies.
Senator, I think what is important here is to place the
appropriate technology in the environment matched with the
necessary training so that we can ensure security and ensure
efficiency with throughput on our passengers and achieve a very
good balance.
Senator Bennett. Final question in that regard, I
understand this is a very difficult kind of coordination that
TSA has to do with the airlines. But the biggest challenge for
throughput, to use your term, seems to be scheduling.
Unfortunately, there are times when the flights to Washington
are always taking off from Salt Lake, when everything is backed
up because the schedules of the airlines have a number of
planes going at that point. And then when I fly someplace other
than Washington at a different time of day, there are TSA
people standing around doing nothing because there are not any
passengers lined up.
Is there any effort being made to try to coordinate with
the airlines at each airport to say these are our heavier
periods where we need every station manned and these are
periods when we need far less, and we can arrange the TSA
schedule to match the airline schedule, and thereby save a
little money and maximize the times when we need the personnel?
Mr. Southers. Senator, that is a very valid concern, and we
faced the same challenge when I first arrived at LAX about 3
years ago.
Senator Bennett. I would think LAX would be the poster
child for that.
Mr. Southers. I am happy to say in most instances we were.
What we have done is our police department along with TSA and
the airlines gathered the information. They gave us passenger
load capacity 2 weeks ahead of time. TSA adjusted their
staffing levels to those passenger loads. We then actually used
that to dictate some of our randomized deployment of our
security measures with those passenger loads. And so we were
able to actually accomplish two very important things: TSA was
able to match the staffing levels with the passengers, and we
were able to look at some of the security threats presented by
an increased number of people in a certain location at a
certain time.
Senator Bennett. I thank you for that, and I hope you share
that expertise gained at LAX with a number of other terminals
that I have gone through that are not that carefully
coordinated.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Lieberman. Thanks, Senator Bennett.
Mr. Southers, just to clarify, how many airports are the
whole-body imaging machines at now generally? I do not expect
you to know exactly.
Mr. Southers. Senator, I do not know that answer. Sorry.
Chairman Lieberman. But as far as you know, is it the
intention of TSA to have whole-body imaging machines at all the
airports or at all the major airports?
Mr. Southers. I honestly do not know.
Chairman Lieberman. When you have a chance, get back to us.
RESPONSE FROM MR. SOUTHERS
I am told that TSA is currently piloting Advanced Imaging
Technology (AIT) as the primary method of screening at six
airports: Albuquerque, Las Vegas, Miami, Salt Lake City, San
Francisco, and Tulsa. I also understand that TSA is currently
using IT at 16 airports in secondary screening.
Chairman Lieberman. Do I have it right that the average
person will go through the magnetometer first, and then if
there is a problem, they are directed to the whole-body imaging
machine or they can opt not to go there and then they will be
patted down?
Mr. Southers. They could actually go through whole-body
imaging first.
Chairman Lieberman. Oh, they could?
Mr. Southers. Yes.
Chairman Lieberman. By their choice or are we setting it up
first in some airports?
Mr. Southers. By their choice, yes, sir.
Chairman Lieberman. Thank you. Senator Voinovich, welcome.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR VOINOVICH
Senator Voinovich. Thank you. I am sorry that I was not
here for your opening statement. I really enjoyed the visit we
had in my office. And I probably of all the members of the
Senate have an intimate relationship with TSA because I have a
pacemaker, and I have been patted down by the best and the
worst. [Laughter.]
I have experienced whole-body imaging in Cleveland. I went
through one here recently in Washington, and the thought was
that people that have pacemakers and others would go through
the whole-body imaging and eliminate the need to be patted
down. But even when you go through the whole-body imaging,
after that they still want to, once in a while, pat you down. I
really do not believe that this system is going to go in
throughout the country, and that is something you are going to
have to decide. But as far as I am concerned, it is a nice
option, and if it is there, I will use it.
I think one of the things that has been brought up is the
issue of how you manage the TSA workforce. And one of the
things I think some of my colleagues are not aware of is that
we do have a different system with TSA than we have with other
Federal employees under title 5. When we stood up TSA, we gave
them a separate section of the code, which gave the managers an
opportunity to have more flexibility. For example, one of the
reasons why we are able to retain part-time people in the TSA,
which we need for those peak travel periods where you need more
personnel, is that TSA has been able to offer them health
insurance.
One of the things that I am very concerned about, as we
discussed in my office, is the effort to return TSA to title 5,
United States Code, which I think would be a grave mistake. On
the other hand, I understand that there is some consideration
being given to having Secretary Napolitano grant some
collective bargaining rights.
Do you believe that collective bargaining rights should be
extended to transportation security officers, and if so, how do
you believe the labor relations system should be crafted? If
TSA provides for collective bargaining, will TSA alter the
Performance Accounting and Standard System, our PASS system,
which means that we have 55,000 people today that are under
performance evaluation, which I think is something that many
people have encouraged us to be doing.
Where do you stand right now in regard to this?
Mr. Southers. Well, Senator, what you have noted is that
over the years, TSA has made continued improvement, and that is
something that is going to be a priority. In fact, what I would
like to see is some day where this agency is the international
model for transportation security.
Where I would stand on that at this point is I would like
to take, if I am confirmed, an opportunity to meet with the
stakeholders, meet with the employees, a cross section of the
organization to see how this is going to impact them. And we
want to be able to protect employees, but our mission is, of
course, security. And in my discussions with staff and the
Secretary, I have made it clear that I would like to review
this matter with the understanding that I would not compromise
the security mission. There are certain costs that need to be
considered. There are certain timelines that have to be
considered if this were going to be engaged.
So my position right now is one of wanting to review it,
wanting to be part of the discussion, but I want to be clear
that I would not endorse, recommend, or suggest to the
Secretary anything that would compromise our mission or in any
way would I suggest that we are going to bargain on security.
Senator Voinovich. That is good. When TSA stood up, there
were problems. I met with several of the managers of the
airports and some of the screeners that were complaining. And I
think one of the most satisfying things--it just happened
recently--is I had an individual who was there just last--
yesterday, as a matter of fact. And about 3 years ago, all he
did was moan and groan about how bad things were, how they
needed a union, and so on and so forth. And in this particular
instance, he had nothing to say except that things are going
good.
So there has been some real progress, I think, made there.
It is not perfect. But, again, I would hate to give up the
flexibilities that you have and return the TSA to title 5. If
there is some compromise that can be worked out, I think that
is good. I am glad to hear that you are not going to compromise
the flexibility that we now have so that we can do the job of
securing our people just because you get lobbied very hard by
some folks out there that want to see TSA come under title 5.
Mr. Southers. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Collins [presiding]. Thank you.
In Senator Lieberman's absence, I temporarily have the
gavel. It feels great to have it once again. [Laughter.]
And I am going to recognize our newest member, Senator
Kirk, for his questions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR KIRK
Senator Kirk. Thank you very much, Senator Collins. The
gavel looks comfortable in your hands.
Welcome, Mr. Southers. Thank you for your service. I know
some of your relatives are here with you, and we welcome them
as well.
Mr. Southers. Thank you, sir.
Senator Kirk. Massachusetts is my home. Boston, the capital
city, is on a port. We have rail service, highways, and
airports like so many others. So we obviously have a great
interest in and gratitude for what your administration does,
and we thank you for your service in that regard.
Understanding fully that your mission is one of security,
and that should be foremost, I wanted to ask you about the
tensions that sometimes come into play with making sure that
security is thorough and enforced, and I am referring to the
No-Fly list. I know my predecessor Senator Edward Kennedy found
his name on a No-Fly list and had considerable difficulty and
challenges getting his name removed from that list. And I
wondered if it was difficult for a U.S. Senator to have his
name removed from a No-Fly list, what measures or what
challenges do you see going ahead for people who perhaps may
not be or should not be warranted as no-fly personnel or
travelers, and how they can be removed from the list or better
protected?
Mr. Southers. Thank you, Senator. The implementation of the
Secure Flight Program is going to mitigate a lot of those
challenges that we have been facing in the past with regard to
mismatches on the No-Fly list. The redress program known as the
Traveler Redress Inquiry Program (TRIP) is one that is working
its way forward. Passengers will be given an identification
number and then, as you know, with Secure Flight, that vetting
is actually occurring before a person gets to the airport.
The goal of the program is to clear people before they even
get to the airport. So we are reducing the number of near
misses or mismatches on names. We are also reducing the need to
have to go to the ticket counter when they arrive. So once this
program is rolled out and it has been endorsed by the
Government Accountability Office (GAO), I think it is going to
greatly reduce those challenges and the problems that we have
had in the past as it relates to No-Fly.
Senator Kirk. And when will that be in effect, do you
expect?
Mr. Southers. I believe it is going to be rolled out in the
next fiscal year.
Senator Kirk. Another question I had was with respect to
the process by which small businesses might be eligible to
compete for some of the things that they produce. We have a lot
of small technology companies in Massachusetts that are
creative with respect to hand devices and other kinds of
technology that I would expect would be helpful to advancing
the mission of TSA. And I wondered if you could just describe
for us what the process is so that small businesses would be
able to compete and have their products assessed and evaluated
so that they could perhaps be a part of helping you in your
mission.
Mr. Southers. Well, I know that this was part of the
efficiency review in which the Secretary engaged earlier this
year. The process is going to involve looking at the
appropriate requests for proposals, making themselves available
to that process, and then competing. We have been quite
successful in the Los Angeles area in looking at businesses of
all sizes to address some of the challenges that we have.
We do encourage SAFETY Act certification by the Department
so they have been recognized by DHS and so we understand that a
certain level of vetting has occurred.
But it is a process really of knowing when those
opportunities exist and then engaging with the appropriate
agency, meaning us, to get into the comparative pool for
technologies that we might consider in the future.
Senator Kirk. I would encourage you to consider symposia
and other things that might showcase some of the creative and
innovative technologies that are coming on stream for two
purposes: First, to help you fulfill your mission, and second,
to allow the small businesses, which are basically the fuel in
a lot of our economic areas, to participate.
Mr. Southers. Thank you, sir.
Senator Kirk. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Chairman Lieberman [presiding]. Thanks, Senator Kirk. Thank
you, Madam Interim Chairman.
Senator Collins. You can say it.
Chairman Lieberman. For presiding while I had to be out.
Senator Kirk. Who has the gavel now?
Chairman Lieberman. I have retaken it. It was a peaceful
transition. [Laughter.]
Senator Collins. We believe in that in America.
Chairman Lieberman. Mr. Southers, thank you very much. We
do not have any more questions. We want to move on to the next
nominee, but I appreciate all the background that you bring to
this. And we are going to keep the record on your hearing open
until the close of business on Thursday so we can give people
another day to submit any additional questions they want
because as soon as we come back, I hope we can move you through
as soon as possible. But my thanks to you, and I look forward
to working with you.
Mr. Southers. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Lieberman. Thank you. Let us now go to Daniel
Gordon.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LIEBERMAN
We will now reconvene and move to the nomination of Daniel
Gordon to be the Administrator of the Office of Federal
Procurement Policy at the Office of Management and Budget.
The purpose of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy is
to bring economy, efficiency, and effectiveness to Federal
procurement. And, of course, the job of the Administrator has
grown more challenging by the year. The sheer size of Federal
contracting puts an enormous amount of responsibility on this
office. Just to give you a sense of it, in fiscal year 2008,
the latest year for which we have complete data, the Federal
Government spent $539 billion on contracts, an amount that is
about two and a half times above what the government was
spending at the beginning of the decade. And as the amount of
contracting has grown, so has the complexity of what we
purchase. Agencies, of course, still make traditional purchases
like office supplies and furniture, but they also contract for
an astounding array of goods and services, from information
technology (IT) systems to pharmaceuticals to intelligence
analysis.
I am grateful that President Obama has turned to a real
experienced expert in this field to serve as Administrator of
OFFP. Since 1992, Mr. Gordon has been an attorney at the
Government Accountability Office, so we feel a particular
closeness to him, rising up through the ranks to be Deputy
General Counsel. Since May, he has served as Acting General
Counsel at GAO, and I think it is fair to say he is known
throughout the procurement community as a very informed and
experienced and thoughtful lawyer.
Mr. Gordon will have no shortages of challenges at OFPP. He
is going to need to push agencies to replenish their
acquisition workforces, which simply have not kept pace with
the growth in contracting. He is going to have to be sure that
competition remains the cornerstone of contracting. He will
have to improve our Federal data systems that provide
transparency into contracting, which too often have inaccurate
or untimely information. And he is going to have to help guide
agencies in the important task of deciding when it is
appropriate to turn to the private sector to perform work and
when a function is so central to an agency's public mission
that it should remain in the hands of public employees.
If you are still willing to proceed with this hearing after
that description of your responsibilities, Mr. Gordon, I
welcome you, and I will have questions for you after your
opening statement.
Senator Collins.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLLINS
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Seldom has a nominee for Administrator of the Office of
Federal Procurement Policy come before the Committee at a more
critical time. The Federal acquisition system is under
tremendous stress. Between fiscal years 2000 and 2008,
acquisition spending by the Federal Government expanded by 163
percent from $205 billion to $539 billion.
OFPP plays a central role in shaping the policies and
practices Federal agencies use to acquire goods and services
that they need to carry out their missions. In so doing, the
OFPP has an obligation to ensure that the Federal acquisition
system promotes the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness that
provide best value to taxpayers.
As a long-time advocate for stronger competition,
accountability, and transparency in government contracting, I
applaud the steps the Administration has taken to improve
Federal contracting. Many of these initiatives originated from
contracting reform legislation I co-authored with Senator
Lieberman during the last Congress.
But the fact remains that no matter how many laws we pass
or how many guidance documents OMB issues, the effectiveness of
our Federal acquisition system depends on a vital human
component, the acquisition workforce.
While contracting spending has risen dramatically, the
number of acquisition personnel who help plan, award, and
oversee these contracts has been stagnant. And with roughly
half of the current acquisition workforce eligible to retire
over the next decade, the difficulties of strengthening that
workforce will only become more acute. A well-trained and well-
resourced workforce is critical to keeping pace with increased
Federal spending on contracts and with the much more complex
procurements of goods and services.
The Administration has identified acquisition workforce
development as a pillar for improving acquisition practices and
contract performance. I am disappointed, however, by OFPP's
latest proposal to supposedly strengthen the acquisition
workforce. The 5-year plan released a few weeks ago falls far
short of the critical changes that this Committee identified
and mandated last year. The plan lacks adequate analysis or
substance to serve as a meaningful blueprint to bolster this
overburdened cadre of professionals and to foster the training
and development of analytical skills necessary to protect the
taxpayers' investment.
We must also consider current staffing levels within the
OFPP itself. In many ways, they mirror the problems that I have
just described in the overall Federal acquisition workforce.
OFPP has broad responsibilities and a staff of roughly a dozen
appears to me to be simply inadequate. This lack of staffing
may explain why OFPP has become increasingly reactive to
procurement failures instead of working proactively to prevent
them from occurring in the first place.
Mr. Gordon brings with him more than 20 years of public and
private experience in the Federal acquisition system ranging
from litigating and adjudicating bid protests to teaching about
the Federal procurement system. I look forward to hearing from
him how he would address these many challenges if he is
confirmed to be the next OFPP Administrator.
Chairman Lieberman. Thanks very much, Senator Collins. Mr.
Gordon has filed responses to a biographical and financial
questionnaire, answered pre-hearing questions submitted by the
Committee, and had his financial statements reviewed by the
Office of Government Ethics.
Without objection, this information will be made a part of
the hearing record with the exception of the financial data,
which are on file and available for public inspection in the
Committee offices.
Mr. Gordon, I think you know that our Committee rules
require that all witnesses at nomination hearings give their
testimony under oath, so I would ask you to stand please and
raise your right hand at this time.
Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give to
this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you, God?
Mr. Gordon. I do.
Chairman Lieberman. I thank you.
Please be seated. We would welcome an opening statement or
an introduction of any family or friends that you have with you
this morning.
TESTIMONY OF DANIEL I. GORDON\1\ TO BE ADMINISTRATOR FOR
FEDERAL PROCUREMENT POLICY, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Mr. Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Collins, and Members of the Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Gordon appears in the Appendix on
page 141.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am honored to appear before you today as President
Obama's nominee to serve as the Administrator for Federal
Procurement Policy. Because, as you noted, Mr. Chairman, I am a
career Federal civil servant, it is especially humbling to be
considered for a position that plays such an important role in
helping our government achieve better results for the American
people.
I am very grateful to have my family and friends with me
this morning, and with your indulgence, I would like to
introduce my mother, Mae Mace, who I might add, Mr. Chairman,
is a graduate of the Norwich Free Academy and Willimantic State
Teachers College, as it was known then.
Chairman Lieberman. I had a feeling that there was
something special about your mom. Thank you, sir.
[Applause.]
That is actually a great school with a proud tradition.
Mr. Gordon. My stepfather, Colonel Herman Mace, who I am
proud to say is a World War II veteran.
Chairman Lieberman. Thank you, sir. Thanks for your
service.
[Applause.]
Mr. Gordon. My wonderful partner of 23 years, Paul Cadario;
my brother and sister-in-law, Mike and Donna Gordon; my other
sister-in-law, Harriet Gordon; and other family members. I am
also delighted to be joined by colleagues from GAO,
particularly the Office of General Counsel, as well as from the
George Washington University Law School where I have been on
the adjunct faculty.
Chairman Lieberman. It is great to see everybody here in
your support.
Mr. Gordon. Thank you.
Chairman Lieberman. And you began, I presume, not in terms
of age but in terms of location.
Mr. Gordon. Yes, sir. Thank you. I would not be here today
without the loving support of my family and their guidance as
well.
The challenges that face us in the acquisition system
require dedicated management attention if we are going to
achieve the type of sustainable improvement that I believe the
President envisioned in his March 4 memorandum on government
contracting. Accordingly, if I am confirmed as Administrator, I
would work with Congress and the agencies to address the
following four priorities.
First, as noted by the Ranking Member, increasing the size
and improving the training of our acquisition workforce. Our
procurement spending, as you have noted, has increased
dramatically in the past decade, and the growth in the
workforce has not kept pace. We need to focus our attention on
developing the acquisition workforce and ensuring that its
members get the training that they need.
Second, we need to find ways to save money and reduce risk
in our acquisitions. As you know, we are operating in a period
of record deficits. A well-trained empowered acquisition
workforce can help us structure our procurements in ways that
save money and mitigate risk. Moreover, I believe that
technology gives us the tools to make the procurement system
much more transparent and that the visibility that transparency
brings can discourage the improper use of high-risk contracting
practices.
Third, improving acquisition planning. We need to work to
ensure that our program staff and our contracting staff are
working together, that they have the capacity and the tools
they need to effectively plan acquisitions because good
planning is critical to successful acquisitions.
Finally, strengthening contract management. As stewards of
the taxpayers, we must make sure that those who contract with
the government deliver what they promise in terms of price,
schedule, and performance.
There are no silver bullets. There are no quick solutions
for any of these challenges. Each one will require hard work
and coordinated actions on the part of multiple stakeholders.
If confirmed, I welcome the opportunity to join the topflight
team led by Director Peter Orszag, Deputy Director Rob Nabors,
and Deputy Director for Management Jeff Zients.
Let me close this brief statement by thanking you again for
the honor and the opportunity to be here today. I would also
like to thank your staff for the time that they spent with me
in preparation for this hearing. If I am confirmed, I look
forward to the opportunity to continue to work with this
Committee and other Members of Congress.
I would be pleased to answer questions that you may have.
Chairman Lieberman. Thanks, Mr. Gordon. That was an
excellent opening statement. And I want to note for the record
that Jeff Zients, the aforementioned Deputy Director for
Management at OMB, is right here. And that speaks to what I am
sure will be a very important and good working relationship.
I am going to start with the standard 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. Gordon. 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. Gordon. No, sir.
Chairman Lieberman. 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. Gordon. Yes, sir.
Chairman Lieberman. Thank you very much.
I am going to ask a few of the questions that I touched on
and then perhaps Senator Collins as well touched on in the
opening statements. From the beginning of the Obama
Administration, the President, as you noted, has put some
emphasis on improved contract management. Back in February,
Senator Collins and I participated in the procurement session
of the President's Fiscal Responsibility Summit, and I have
been pleased that OMB has followed up on some of the ideas that
were discussed at that session by issuing two rounds of
guidance on contracting, first in July and then again last
month.
This guidance does not rewrite Federal procurement rules,
which is wise, in my opinion, given that we already have very
detailed rules in the Federal acquisition regulation. But the
guidance does lay out some best practices for agencies to
increase competition, reduce the risk in contracting, and
engage in better human resource planning so that the agencies
find the right balance between their in-house workforces and
outside contractors.
So I wanted to ask you what role you think the
Administrator of OFPP should play in making sure that the
agencies follow the new guidance.
Mr. Gordon. Mr. Chairman, OFPP and its Administrator can
play an important role in ensuring the implementation of the
guidance as well as, more generally, the implementation of the
statutes and regulations about procurement.
As I understand it, the OFPP Administrator works closely
with chief acquisition officers through the Chief Acquisition
Officers council and with senior procurement executives. The
work with other agencies across the government is critical for
the Administrator to hear what is happening, hear lessons
learned, and share best practices so that we can implement the
guidance and move forward.
Chairman Lieberman. The July guidance from OMB lays out a
couple of specific goals, which are, I say with appreciation,
real, but I think they are also manageable, which is a
reduction in 7 percent of contract spending and a 10 percent
reduction in high-risk contracts; that is, non-competitive
contracts or cost-reimbursement contracts over the next fiscal
year.
So as I said, I think these are achievable goals, but over
the long run, the efficiencies that can be wrung out of
contracting are going to vary from agency to agency. And I
think, therefore, handing down numerical targets may not be the
logical way and the next step to proceed to better management.
So I wanted to ask you once we get by these initial
reduction targets, what do you think OFPP can do? And in
another sense, what leverage does the office have to sustain
the momentum for better contract management and how will you
manage, what kinds of benchmarks do you think might be
established to measure the performance of each agency in this
regard?
Mr. Gordon. Mr. Chairman, one of the challenges in this
area is more transparency and the need for more transparency.
We need to know what is happening out there. In particular, for
example, with the use of cost-reimbursement contracting where I
know GAO just recently issued a report expressing concern that
we do not have enough data on the number of cost-reimbursement
contracts. When we have more transparency, as I said in my
opening statement, that transparency can highlight the use of
high-risk contracting methods, cost reimbursement, non-competed
contracts, time and materials contracts. And in my view, that
transparency itself can help.
In addition, OFPP and its Administrator can, as I said,
ensure that there is communication among the agencies and a
sharing of lessons among the agencies to look for ways to
reduce our risk and to get away from these higher risk
contracting methods.
Chairman Lieberman. That is a good answer, and I thank you.
Let me ask you a very different kind of question about
automated contract writing, which is a tool that I think can be
very useful as we move to an electronic-based procurement
system and away from a paper-based system. An automated system,
I think, would help supervisors flag potentially troublesome
contracts. And finally, an automated system, I think, would
help us get better real-time transparency, which you focused
on, of Federal spending.
My understanding is that agencies vary quite a lot in their
use now of automated writing systems. And I wanted to ask you
if you have any plans to review this area and to see what
efficiencies we might gain from better governmentwide contract-
writing systems.
Mr. Gordon. If I am confirmed, Mr. Chairman, I would very
much like to look into that. I would point out a couple of
things. One is that uniformity, using, as you said, a standard
contract writing software across the government, has certain
advantages. Uniformity in our procurement system can make
training easier and less expensive, can make it easier for
people to transfer from agency to agency and take their skills
with them.
Obviously, there are situations when uniformity is not
appropriate where you have agency-specific issues. There are
some issues in the Department of Defense (DOD) obviously where
they would have different regulations governing their
acquisitions. So their system may need to be different. But it
is certainly an area that I would want to explore to see if we
can squeeze more efficiency out of our system.
Chairman Lieberman. Good. A final question, which is also
to raise something on your screen, we are holding this hearing
as part of our traditional governmental affairs responsibility.
We also now in recent years have had a homeland security
responsibility. And we are focused this year, among other
things, on cybersecurity as the rest of the government is.
At a hearing we held in April on this subject, there was a
very interesting point made, I thought, by one of the
witnesses, that the Federal Government itself has tremendous
buying power with regard to information technology. One
estimate we heard was that in fiscal year 2010, we will spend
approximately $76 billion on information technology matters.
The challenge was raised as to the way in which we can use
that spending strategically to improve Federal cybersecurity,
and cybersecurity generally, by requiring more of the IT
industry in the area of cybersecurity, particularly for such a
large client base. I want to ask you if this makes sense to you
and if you would take a look at it and hopefully act on that
idea once you assume this office, if confirmed.
Mr. Gordon. Mr. Chairman, I would welcome the opportunity
to look into that. I see the issue as being part of strategic
sourcing more broadly. The government, our Federal Government,
as you know, is the largest buyer in the world.
Chairman Lieberman. Right.
Mr. Gordon. We need to be sure that we are taking advantage
of our buying power and that we are using it to save money but
also to leverage in an area such as cybersecurity, which I
would welcome the opportunity to look into.
Chairman Lieberman. Very good, thanks very much. Senator
Collins.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gordon, I mentioned in my opening statement my concern
about a recent OFPP document on the Acquisition Workforce
Development Strategic Plan. It is dated October 27, 2009.
Have you had a chance to read this document yet?
Mr. Gordon. I have, Senator Collins, although, of course, I
was not privy to the development of it.
Senator Collins. Do you think that we could strengthen the
acquisition workforce planning beyond what is in this document?
Mr. Gordon. I heard your statements both today and in the
hearing that I think the contracting subcommittee held last
week or the week before, and I very much appreciated the point
you made. I know that you are an advocate for strengthening our
acquisition workforce, and if I am confirmed, I would welcome
the opportunity to work with you and your staff to find ways to
be sure that we do strengthen the acquisition workforce across
the civilian agencies.
Senator Collins. I think that is absolutely critical. As I
have said, it does not matter how many executive orders are
promulgated, how much guidance is issued, or how many laws we
pass if we do not have a high quality and sufficiently sized
workforce to implement it. So I look forward to working with
you on that, which leads me to another workforce issue, which
is OFPP's own workforce.
OFPP in recent years has been largely reactive rather than
proactive on procurement reforms, and I cannot help but wonder
if that is attributable to the small size of the office. I am
not looking to create some huge new bureaucracy, but I believe
OFPP has only about a dozen full-time employees.
Do you think that is adequate for the mission of the
office?
Mr. Gordon. It is an issue that, if I am confirmed, I would
welcome the opportunity to look into. I will tell you that I am
committed to ensuring that OFPP has adequate staff with the
right skill set.
Senator Collins. Let me turn to two specific policy
concerns that I have. The Acquisition Advisory Council, which
was created by Congress in 2003, recommended that multi-agency
contracts and certain large dollar single agency indefinite
delivery and indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contracts--referred to
as enterprise-wide contracts--be centrally coordinated by OMB.
And a lot of times, these enterprise contracts are huge. They
are enormous. The Navy's SeaPort-e contract has an aggregate
ceiling of $209 billion. The DHS Enterprise Acquisition Gateway
for Leading Edge Solutions (EAGLE) contract has an aggregate
ceiling of $45 billion. Both of these are multi-year contracts.
And the advisory panel has also observed that the proliferation
of contract vehicles dampens the government's ability to
leverage its buying power.
How would you address the problem of unnecessary
duplication in similar contracts in various Federal agencies?
Mr. Gordon. Senator Collins, I very much appreciate the
report of the Acquisition Advisory Council and their
recommendations. And the issue of duplication in these IDIQ
contracts is a tough issue. I appreciate the logic, as the
report pointed out, that sometimes a little bit of competition
can be healthy.
But I have heard considerable concern, both on the
government side and on the private sector side, that the
duplication has gone too far, that there are wasted efforts and
wasted money. And potentially, it is acting as the opposite of
strategic sourcing. It is essentially dividing up the Federal
buying power instead of building it up.
It is an issue that definitely merits attention. I know
that OFPP has been looking at insisting that new IDIQ contracts
come forward with a business case to justify them. It is
definitely an issue that, if I am confirmed, I would want to
look into to be sure that duplication is not wasteful of our
very limited resources.
Senator Collins. Thank you. I am pleased to hear you
mention talking with the private sector. I think we should view
the private sector as our partners in trying to procure
services and goods that the Federal Government needs. Sometimes
the relationship becomes too adversarial. On the other hand,
there are rampant abuses that have occurred in some contracts
because of insufficient oversight. So we need to reach out to
the private sector to learn from them, but at the same time,
make sure we have aggressive oversight.
The relationship with the private sector brings up an issue
that the Chairman and I have focused on many times. As you
know, contractors are prohibited by law from performing
inherently governmental functions. But defining what is an
inherent government function is not always easy. Our Committee,
however, has concluded that in the case of DHS, contractors
were performing many functions, such as writing specifications
for contracts, that clearly should be done in-house.
What would you do to ensure that the proper balance is
struck and that agencies are maintaining their ability to
perform core functions?
Mr. Gordon. I very much appreciate the concerns that you
raise, Senator Collins, on both sides. That is to say, I very
much agree that contractors perform important functions. We
need to work with the contractors that are helping the
government carry out its tasks. But as you said, and I also
very much agree with this, we need to be careful that we have
not become overly reliant on contractors.
As both the President and the Director of OMB have said,
there is real concern that we have gone overboard in
contracting out. We need to revisit the contracting out that we
have done to be sure not only that inherently governmental
functions are performed by Federal employees; that should be a
given. But in addition, there are other functions which are
critical to the agency's performance of its mission that need
to be performed by Federal employees. The agency must not lose
control of its operations by outsourcing too much.
I understand that OMB is committed to developing clearer
guidance on inherently governmental functions, and if I am
confirmed, I would welcome the opportunity to be part of that
process.
Senator Collins. Thank you. My time has expired, so I am
going to submit my further questions for the record.
Let me just in closing say that you also need to pay
attention to the use of blanket purchase agreements (BPA). GAO
has a new report that indicates that in over half of the sample
BPAs that were reviewed, there was no evidence that agencies
sought discounts when establishing these agreements. This is an
issue that definitely OFPP needs to take a look at.
Mr. Gordon. I agree.
Senator Collins. Thank you.
Chairman Lieberman. Thanks, Senator Collins. Senator
Voinovich.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you. I would like to build on a
couple of questions that Senator Collins mentioned. First of
all, have you had a chance to evaluate OFPP's resources?
Are there enough people in your shop to get the job done?
Does OFPP have the quality and the numbers to get it done?
Mr. Gordon. I have been very impressed by the people in
OFPP that I have worked with over the years, including more
recently. I have been impressed by the quality of the work that
they do, but I have not formed an opinion yet about the
appropriate number.
Senator Voinovich. If you find that the right people are
not there, are you going to tell Mr. Zients that you need more
people?
Mr. Gordon. The good thing about working for Jeff Zients is
I think he would view me as part of the team and we would be
communicating very frankly and freely.
Senator Voinovich. The second question deals with the issue
of having the in-house people to have the expertise to work
with the contractors that you hire. I have found from my career
in the management side that too often agencies farm out
acquisition functions and do not have the people in-house to
make sure that the people that they have farmed the work out to
are doing the job that they are supposed to be doing. And I
would be very interested in having an appraisal, assuming you
are confirmed, of agencies that you feel lack the capacity in-
house to get the job done. I think that is real important, and
I am sure there is going to be some standards developed on this
issue. But I would like to know after maybe 6 months which
agencies you think need to bring some folks back in-house or
develop the capacity in-house to get the job done.
The other issue is we had a hearing in August, and we were
dismayed to learn that the chief acquisition officer of one of
the Federal Government's top purchasers was not aware he could
access direct hire authority for acquisition personnel.
If confirmed, what are you going to do to make sure that
agencies know what flexibilities they have to get the people
they need to get the job done? Also, I would be interested in
knowing whether or not you think that the salary levels are
adequate to compete for acquisition personnel because there is
a big need out there in this area.
Mr. Gordon. There is. Senator, thank you for the questions.
If I could say first of all more broadly before addressing some
of the specific points you raised, I think we are in a very
good situation in that we have a broad consensus from this
Committee, from Congress generally, and across the agencies,
and obviously at OMB, that we must increase the size of the
acquisition workforce. We must increase their training.
Senator Voinovich. Now, do you have the flexibilities and
the salary schedule to go out and get those individuals?
Mr. Gordon. We absolutely need to be sure that we have that
capacity. On the salary, I do not feel like I know enough about
the facts, but I have noted it down. I do want to look into
that. I am encouraged by the fact that the Office of Personnel
Management under the new Administrator, John Berry, is working
to streamline the Federal hiring practices. We need to be able
to hire people. We need to hire qualified people. Fortunately,
the job market today actually facilitates hiring in the Federal
Government, but we then need to train them. We need to reward
them so that they feel appreciated in our acquisition
workforce--very important things that I would view as high
priorities if I am confirmed as Administrator.
Senator Voinovich. It has been mentioned that you are going
to have a lot of retirements from the acquisition workforce.
What policies are in place for hiring back annuitants to
train the new people coming on board?
Mr. Gordon. I understand, Senator, that there are some
flexibilities there, but I should note that there has actually
been growth in the acquisition workforce over the past year and
a half, 2 years, and that is somewhat encouraging. But we do
need to look to flexibilities such as rehired annuitants, if
that is appropriate, and to be sure that agencies, as you say,
know what flexibilities they have in hiring.
Senator Voinovich. The National Defense Authorization Act
of 2008 required OFPP to develop a sustainable funding model to
support the hiring, training, and retention of acquisition
personnel. The recently released OFPP guidance on acquisition
workforce development strategic planning did not provide a
specific discussion of the funding mechanism.
Would you please share your views on how efforts to grow
the civilian acquisition workforce should be funded and would
you support a centralized fund similar to the Defense
Acquisition Workforce Development Fund in order to get the job
done? In other words, what we are doing, we are giving the
budgets of each of the departments and acquisition is included
under the personnel line item probably, and then they have to
decide how much goes to the acquisition workforce.
If we do have this great need, do you think we should
continue that practice or should we set up a separate fund as
has been the case with the Defense Acquisition Workforce
Development Fund?
Mr. Gordon. I appreciate the appeal of having a fund as we
have on the DOD side. Senator, to tell you frankly, I just do
not feel like I know enough of the different aspects of the
issue to have an opinion yet, but I can commit to you that I
would want to look into it. We need to be sure that we have a
way to bring on board the acquisition employees that we need.
Senator Voinovich. Good. I just think so often we ask
people to do a job like the one we are going to be asking you
to do, and then we do not have the infrastructure in place so
that you can achieve that job. And I would hope that you would
be as candid as you can be with Mr. Zients and also with this
Committee in terms of whether or not you feel that you are in
position to do the job we are going to ask you to do.
Mr. Gordon. Thank you.
Chairman Lieberman. Thanks, Senator Voinovich. Senator
Kirk.
Senator Kirk. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Mr. Gordon. Welcome to your family. To your
father, we celebrate all veterans, but your service to the
country at this particular time is poignant, and we thank you
for that.
First of all, I want to identify myself with Senator
Collins' comments about the clarification between those
contracts that are clearly governmental and those that might be
available for commercial bidding and competition. It is clear
from the President's memorandum of March 4 that there is a need
for greater clarity and clearing the blurs in the lines and so
forth.
Can you be more specific about what you would do, if you
are confirmed for your new position, to make sure that those
lines are clear so people in the commercial sector can know
whether and when they can compete?
Mr. Gordon. Yes, Senator. My understanding is that OMB is
already working with the Executive Branch agencies to get those
agencies to identify on a pilot basis functions where there is
a risk that they are, in fact, overly reliant on contractors. I
do not know the details, obviously, because I am not in the
position. But if I am confirmed, I very much would want to look
into that.
As one of your colleagues mentioned earlier, acquisition is
a particularly sensitive area. If we have contractors that are
playing a role in acquisition, we need to be sure at the
minimum that there are not conflicts of interest that would
make it inappropriate for a contractor to be working in that
area. But as I think is implicit in your question, OMB needs to
give Executive Branch agencies guidance and the private sector
guidance about what work should not be contracted out but
rather needs to be performed by Federal employees. And if I am
confirmed, I would welcome the opportunity to be part of that.
Senator Kirk. Thank you. One of the tangential tensions, if
you will, with contracting out inherently Federal functions is
the risk that personal information of Americans and contractors
might be mishandled. And I think most folks would rely on and
hope to have assurances that security of their personal
information would not be compromised. And I wondered whether
you know whether OMB will provide additional guidance on this
issue to agencies that handle personal information such as I am
describing.
Mr. Gordon. Senator, the issue of personally identifiable
information and the need to protect it is a very high priority.
I would need to look into the specifics of any role that OFPP
might have in that, but I commit to you that, if I am
confirmed, I will be happy to look into that issue.
Senator Kirk. Thank you very much. One other important area
about no-bid contracts is that they prevent many well qualified
small businesses from competing on a level playing field. One
of the leaders of small business in my State in Massachusetts
said that, ``The record has been pretty dismal,'' when it comes
to the ability to compete for Federal contracts.
Would you agree with that characterization? And I wondered
what efforts might be made to perhaps make small business more
accessible to an ability to compete for some of these
contracts?
Mr. Gordon. Opening up opportunities, Senator, for small
businesses to compete for Federal contracts is a bedrock
principle of our Federal procurement system, and obviously, it
is enshrined in law through the Small Business Act and the
regulations implementing it. One of OFPP's functions is to work
with the Small Business Administration and through that
cooperation remove barriers to entry so that small businesses
can participate in the competition for contracts.
I would note that there has actually been quite a bit of
success. I appreciate that a small business that does not get a
contract may feel frustrated, but, in fact, there is, I
understand, a Federal target of roughly 23 percent and we are
close to that target. And I think under the Recovery Act,
contracts are actually above that target. So progress is made,
but as we often say at GAO, more work remains to be done.
Senator Kirk. It is an area where I think a small business
is very much the touchstone of our economy and particularly in
certain areas of our country, so I would encourage you to keep
pushing that forward.
Mr. Gordon. Yes, sir, I will do that.
Senator Kirk. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, that is
all I have for this morning.
Chairman Lieberman. Thank you very much, Senator Kirk. I
appreciate those questions. More work needs to be done. You are
right.
Thank you. You have been very responsive to the Committee's
questions. I hope I do not jinx your nomination by saying it
is, in my experience on the Committee, one of the most broadly
supported, uncontroversial nominations, so I hope it continues
to be that way.
Mr. Gordon. You are very kind, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Chairman Lieberman. You have earned it.
We are going to keep the record of this hearing open until
the close of business on Thursday for additional questions or
statements, and then we will try to move your nomination
through the Committee and the floor as soon as possible to get
you to work. I thank you for being here. I thank your family. I
cannot repeat too many times how exciting it is to have a
graduate of the Norwich Free Academy here in the room.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Gordon. You made her day, sir.
Chairman Lieberman. She made mine. With that, the hearing
is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.008
Statement of Erroll G. Southers to be Assistant Secretary,
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
November 10, 2009
Good morning Chairman Lieberman, Ranking Member Collins,
and distinguished Members of the Committee. Before I begin, I
would like to extend my most heartfelt sympathy and support for
the victims of the shooting at Ft. Hood and their families.
I am honored to appear before you today as President
Obama's nominee to lead the Transportation Security
Administration as Assistant Secretary. It is a privilege to be
selected by the President and to receive the support of
Secretary Napolitano. I look forward to the great challenge of
continuing the exceptional work that the men and women of TSA
do in protecting our homeland.
With the Committee's indulgence, I would like to thank my
parents, James and Thelma, my wife, Caryn, and our children,
James and Maia, for their love and support. I am so very
pleased that Caryn and Maia are able to join me today. I also
must thank and acknowledge the outstanding officers and
employees of the Los Angeles World Airports Police Department
and my esteemed colleagues at the University of Southern
California.
I share Secretary Napolitano's vision that keeping our
homeland safe from terrorism is a collective responsibility in
which all Americans have a role to play. Protecting our
transportation network requires the work of many hands--TSA,
the unified resources of the Department of Homeland Security,
other federal agencies, private industry, state, local, and
tribal governments, our international partners, and most
importantly, the traveling public. By engaging these partners,
and with the oversight and guidance from Congress, we will more
effectively ensure the free movement of the American people and
the flow of commerce.
If confirmed, I know that the honor of leading TSA will
come with great challenges and responsibilities. When Congress
created TSA following the terrorist attacks of 9/11, you gave
TSA the mission to provide for the security of all modes of
transportation. While TSA has made great strides in fulfilling
this responsibility, I fully understand that the work will
never be complete. We are challenged by a dynamic threat and
adaptive enemies who seek to harm Americans and our way of
life.
I believe that I am up to the challenge of leading TSA.
TSA, and its most valuable resource, its people, need
leadership. I understand what type of leadership and support
the front-line workforce needs to execute a security mission.
For the past thirty years I have dedicated myself to the
mission of counterterrorism and public safety at the federal,
state, and local levels. This has given me the important
perspective to understand how partnerships are critical to
success. The crucial need to effectively share information, be
it threat information, intelligence, coordinated response
planning, or best practices, is something that I have lived
with, practiced, and experienced. If confirmed, I will bring
this same dedication and commitment with me to TSA.
Since 2007 I have served as the Assistant Chief for
Homeland Security and Intelligence for the Los Angeles World
Airports Police Department. I am proud to wear the uniform of
the airport police with the responsibility, in partnership with
TSA and other agencies, to protect the people and goods that
pass through one of the world's major airports, Los Angeles
International Airport, as well as Van Nuys Airport, one of the
busiest general aviation airports in the United States. LAX has
the largest aviation law enforcement agency in the United
States, with the largest complement of explosives detection
canine teams of any U.S. airport. LAX is also an intermodal hub
with an important nexus to surface transportation with its
nearby light rail system and transit buses.
LAX has served as an interdisciplinary laboratory in a real
world setting for advances in risk modeling and infrastructure
protection. If confirmed, I will seek to further develop and
deploy innovative security strategies and technologies to
protect our transportation systems.
Since 2006, I have served as Associate Director of the
University of Southern California's Center for Risk and
Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events (CREATE), a DHS Center
for Excellence. My responsibilities include the development and
enhancement of special programs to provide the intellectual
underpinnings for the fight against terrorism. At CREATE, I
developed an Executive Program in Counterterrorism, designed to
challenge international counterterrorism leaders and enhance
their analysis, coordination, and response capabilities.
My experience with LAWA and CREATE has afforded me the
opportunity to collaborate with my international counterparts
and other world experts in sharing best practices to combat
terrorism. If confirmed, I will continue to draw on these
relationships to benefit TSA's mission.
I also had the honor to serve Governor Schwarzenegger as
the Deputy Director of the Office of Homeland Security for
California. I was responsible for counterterrorism policy, the
protection of California's critical infrastructure in the post-
September 11, 2001 environment and participated in the
development of DHS's first National Infrastructure Protection
Plan.
If confirmed, I will serve as a key member of Secretary
Napolitano's leadership team as she continues to forge a
unified agency. Having served at both the operational level and
as a stakeholder of the Department, I hope that I will bring a
fresh perspective to fully integrating TSA operations as part
of ``One DHS.''
Every day at LAX I witness firsthand the great work of the
Transportation Security Officers and I understand the
challenges they face. I would be honored to serve as their
Assistant Secretary. I will provide them with an effective
voice within TSA while fulfilling the agency's critical
security mission. A professional, effective workforce will
further promote public confidence in TSA while enhancing our
country's resilience.
If confirmed, I hope to forge a close relationship with
this Committee and with Congress. This is a partnership, and
the threat the United States faces requires a unified effort.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Collins, and Members of the
Committee, thank you again for the opportunity to meet with you
and your staff, and appear before you today. I look forward to
answering your questions.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.138
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.140
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.142
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.143
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.144
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.145
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.146
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.147
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.148
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.149
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.150
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.151
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.152
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.153
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.154
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.155
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.156
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.157
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.158
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.159
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.160
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.161
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.162
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.163
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.164
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 56143.165
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
