U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

85–507 PDF 2014

S. Hrg. 113–142 

NOMINATIONS OF HON. STEVAN E. BUNNELL 

AND SUZANNE E. SPAULDING 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

NOMINATIONS OF HON. STEVAN E. BUNNELL TO BE GENERAL COUNSEL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND SUZANNE E. 

SPAULDING TO BE UNDER SECRETARY FOR NATIONAL PROTECTION 

AND PROGRAMS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2013 

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

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

( 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

JEFF CHIESA, New Jersey 

RICHARD J. KESSLER, Staff Director 

JOHN P. KILVINGTON, Deputy Staff Director 

DEIRDRE G. ARMSTRONG, Professional Staff Member 

MARY BETH SCHULTZ, Chief Counsel for Homeland Security 

STEPHEN R. VIN ̃ A, Deputy Chief Counsel for Homeland Security 

MATTHEW R. GROTE, Senior Professional Staff Member 

JOHN G. COLLINS, Professional Staff Member 

DEANNE B. MILLISON, Counsel 

KEITH B. ASHDOWN, Minority Staff Director 

CHRISTOPHER J. BARKLEY, Minority Deputy Staff Director 

DANIEL P. LIPS, Minority Director of Homeland Security 

SARAH BETH GROSHART, Minority Counsel 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Chief Clerk 

LAUREN M. CORCORAN, Hearing Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

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

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

Senator Johnson ............................................................................................... 19 

Senator Chiesa .................................................................................................. 22 

Prepared statements: 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 39 

Senator Coburn ................................................................................................. 41 

Senator Kaine ................................................................................................... 44 

Senator Warner ................................................................................................ 45 

WITNESSES 

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2013 

Hon. Mark R. Warner, a U.S. Senator from the State of Virginia ...................... 6 

Hon. Tim Kaine, a U.S. Senator from the State of Virginia ................................ 7 

Kenneth L. Wainstein, Partner, Cadwalader Wickersham and Taft: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 46 

Stevan E. Bunnell, to be General Counsel, U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 10 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 50 

Biographical and financial information .......................................................... 54 

Letter from the Office of Government Ethics ................................................. 71 

Responses to pre-hearing questions ................................................................ 74 

Responses to post-hearing questions .............................................................. 98 

Letters of support ............................................................................................. 241 

Suzanne E. Spaulding to be Under Secretary (for National Protection and 

Programs), U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 12 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 107 

Biographical and financial information .......................................................... 112 

Letter from the Office of Government Ethics ................................................. 138 

Responses to pre-hearing questions ................................................................ 141 

Responses to post-hearing questions .............................................................. 231 

Letters of support ............................................................................................. 275 

(1) 

NOMINATIONS OF HON. STEVAN E. BUNNELL, 

AND SUZANNE E. SPAULDING 

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2013 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:32 a.m., in room 

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

presiding. 

Present: Senators Carper, Coburn, Johnson, Ayotte, and Chiesa. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN CARPER 

Chairman CARPER. The hearing will come to order. 

I am happy that we are here, and have our nominees here. We 

welcome you. We got to meet some of your families—parents, 

spouses, children—and it is just a joy to meet them and a joy that 

they can be here to support both of you. I would say to the parents 

that are here, thank you for infusing the kind of values in this 

young woman, this young man, and inspiring them and encouraging them to serve our country in a variety of capacities. Usually, 

kids do not turn out well unless their parents had something to do 

with it, so moms and dads sitting in the audience, nice work. Nice 

work. 

Before I turn to Dr. Coburn for any comments that he might 

want to make, I want to just give a fairly brief opening statement 

and we will get started. 

But the other thing I want to do, we have a Bible study that 

meets every Wednesday morning. I do not usually get to go because 

it is pretty early, eight to nine. I am usually on a train coming 

down. Senator Johnson is often there and a number of our other 

colleagues. We were reminded this morning of the folks who have 

literally laid down their lives in service to our country and were 

tragically gunned down just a couple days ago. 

I just want to start this hearing today with a moment of silence 

in their memory and thanks and gratitude to them and in a sense 

of one, in unity with their families. Will you just do that. [Moment 

of silence.] 

Thank you. 

Well, one of my hopes, one of my aspirations is that we can, by 

working together, learn as much as possible from the tragedy that 

occurred 2 days ago so that we can prevent or at least reduce the 

likelihood of those kinds of tragedies occurring again in the future. 

We know that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is 
2 

going to be doing its part to learn from this incident, the sadness, 

and to do its best to ensure we do not let it happen again. 

Today, we consider the nominations of Stevan Bunnell, President 

Obama’s choice to serve as the General Counsel of the Department 

of Homeland Security, and Suzanne Spaulding, the President’s 

nominee to be Under Secretary for the National Protection and 

Programs Directorate (NPPD). 

These positions, as we know, are extremely important to not just 

the Department, I think, but to the security of our Nation and its 

people. The National Protection and Programs Directorate, for example, is responsible for securing our Nation’s critical infrastructure from cyber attacks. The General Counsel serves as the Secretary’s chief legal advisor and ensures that the Department’s activities are consistent, one, with the Constitution, and two, with 

the laws that we pass here in Congress. 

I know that my colleagues and I on the Committee are very 

pleased to see the President has put forth nominees to fill the leadership vacancies in these critical components. The Administration 

has made some recent progress, much needed, toward filling a 

number of vacancies in the Department, and from what I understand, the nominations are pending for four of the eight Senateconfirmed vacancies at the Department of Homeland Security. Of 

course, that still leaves four positions without even a name put forward, including the Secretary and Inspector General (IG). It is imperative that we get all these vacancies filled as quickly as possible. 

As I said before, the confirmation process is a shared responsibility. The Administration has the responsibility to give us the 

names of excellent people—I think the President has today—people 

who are hard working, who are honorable, capable people who can 

provide strong leadership, not just at the Department of Homeland 

Security but across our government. 

My colleagues and I here in the Senate have an obligation of our 

own to exercise our advice and consent responsibilities in a judicious but timely manner. If a nominee is qualified, we need to 

move him or her quickly. 

This morning, we have before us two people who I believe are 

very well qualified. Stevan Bunnell has over 25 years of experience 

practicing law, and for 17 of those years, he served in positions of 

increasing responsibility as a prosecutor and supervisor at the Department of Justice (DOJ), including as Chief of the Fraud and 

Public Corruption Section and Chief of the Criminal Division at the 

U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington, DC. 

In addition to working with a variety of law enforcement agencies on complex criminal cases, it is my understanding that Mr. 

Bunnell has also worked closely on national security issues with 

someone we are all very familiar with, and that is Michael 

Chertoff, then Assistant Attorney General in the Department of 

Justice, later Secretary for the Department of Homeland Security. 

Later, Mr. Bunnell left the government for private practice. He is 

currently serving as the Managing Partner of the law firm 

O’Melveny and Myers in Washington, DC. 

Sitting beside him, to his left, to our right, is Suzanne Spaulding. 

She comes to us with a rich background in both government service 
3 

1Letters of support appear in the Appendix on page 240. 

and work in the private sector. She is currently serving as the Acting Under Secretary for the National Protection and Programs Directorate. Before that, she served as Deputy Under Secretary in the 

Directorate. 

Ms. Spaulding’s distinguished career has also included positions 

as the General Counsel for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Staff Director of the House Permanent Select Committee 

on Intelligence, and as an attorney for the Central Intelligence 

Agency (CIA). She has also had several years of experience in private practice. 

Sitting in the seat that Mr. Bunnell is sitting was Jane Harman, 

who sat in that seat last week on the anniversary of September 11, 

2001, and had wonderful things to say about you, Suzanne, and 

your service. 

In her current post at the Department of Homeland Security, Ms. 

Spaulding has brought a direct and engaged management approach 

to some of the Department’s most important missions. 

Over the course of their respective careers, both of our nominees 

have shown themselves to be natural leaders. In addition, both 

have become widely respected by their peers for their intellect, for 

their professionalism, and for their integrity. I believe these are the 

types of qualities we want to see—need to see—in our government 

leaders. 

I would like to ask for unanimous consent to enter into the 

record all the letters of support1 we received that speak to the wonderful attributes of our nominees. 

To conclude, I just want to thank both of our nominees for their 

willingness to continue to serve—our Nation in these important responsibilities, important posts, and also again to thank their families for raising them and for their willingness to share them with 

all of us. We know that public service is not always easy. It is rarely easy. My dad used to say the hardest things to do are the things 

most worth doing, so this is hard work and we are grateful that 

you are willing to do it and we thank your families again for their 

commitment to our Nation and for being here with us all today. 

With that, I turn to my friend, Dr. Coburn, for any comments he 

might want to add, and then we are going to recognize some of our 

introducers of these folks. Please, Tom. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COBURN 

Senator COBURN. Thank you. I am going to go out of my normal 

realm and actually read my opening statement today because it 

covers some areas that I want to make sure are emphasized. 

First of all, I want to welcome you. I think we have two very well 

qualified candidates, and I talked with the Acting Secretary yesterday and assured him I would do everything I could to move these 

nominations to the Senate floor. 

Leadership vacancies are the biggest challenge right now facing 

the Department of Homeland Security. This Committee held a 

hearing last week looking at the lessons learned and challenges 

facing the Department. We heard from former Secretary Ridge and 

other former senior officials about the many and multiple chal-
4 

lenges that DHS faced, from questions about congressional oversight to mission creep and successful integration of the Department 

and its components. 

A clear take-away from that hearing was that it is going to require real leadership to address these problems and create a wellfunctioning Department for the next 10 years. And, of course, the 

biggest problem there is the vacancies, the 15 key vacancies, eight 

of which are Senate approved, seven of which are not. If DHS is 

going to address its many challenges and become a well functioning 

Department with great morale, it will require strong and effective 

leadership atop the Department and at each component, each office, and each directorate. 

I am hopeful that our two nominees under consideration today 

will earn the Committee’s support and be confirmed. Each of you 

has an impressive resume and experience and knowledge that 

make you well qualified for the positions to which you have been 

nominated. 

To Ms. Spaulding, I have really appreciated our meetings, both 

at DHS and in my office, and the candid conversations that we 

have had about the challenges. 

Mr. Bunnell, I have reviewed your background and your questionnaires, and I understand that you are more than well qualified 

for the position to which you have been nominated. 

But by earning the trust and the support of our Committee, we 

ask for your word and assurance that we will be partners in working together to fix the Department. Conducting oversight is our job, 

and asking questions on behalf of the American people is one of our 

Committee’s main responsibilities. 

Unfortunately, in my experience to date, over the last 8 years, 

81⁄2 years, DHS too often does not cooperate with our oversight requests and many times has undermined our ability and what could 

be a collaborative process to identify and fix problems. 

For example, when the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations was doing our investigation into the Fusion Center program, 

DHS seemed to use every available tool that they could, including 

weak legal arguments, to drag out the process and undermine the 

oversight process. The result was significant in our investigation, 

which ultimately found some significant problems. And that was a 

lose-lose for DHS, the Congress, and, frankly, the American people 

who are paying for the programs. Instead of spending 2 years fixing the problem and figuring out how DHS’s intelligence program 

could yield better value for the American taxpayer, we were stuck 

in absurd legal debates over document production. 

In other cases, I have asked basic questions and did not receive 

straight answers from the Department. For example, during the 

immigration reform debate, I asked the Secretary whether or not 

she could share with me her border sector specific security plan 

and provide a congressionally mandated border security status report. The initial report was due in Congress in February 2012, 

which we still do not have. And we still do not have a sector specific border security plan. And the information I got was not helpful 

at all. So, our Committee in the Senate had to vote on an immigration bill without the full knowledge and full input of the people 

who have most of the knowledge. 
5 

Today, I ask you to be partners with our Committee and to 

pledge to be cooperative with our Committee and the Congress in 

the oversight process. 

In the conversations I have had personally with Ms. Spaulding, 

I have shared we are not in ‘‘gotcha’’ mode. The problems are too 

great to play politics with what is going on at Homeland Security. 

And, Mr. Bunnell, as General Counsel, you have the responsibility of overseeing how the Department and its components will 

respond to our oversight requests. I ask you to commit today to 

being supportive and cooperative and transparent with those requests. 

The NPPD is a directorate with a troubled track record. We have 

had those discussions. The Committee and Congress have had serious questions about the key initiatives of this directorate, such as 

the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) program 

for chemical facility security, and last night, I got an update. We 

have 25 of some 5,000 now approved. We have not had one onsite 

visit. We have 25 approved. And none of those are really approved 

because they have not been checked against the security lists that 

we maintain. So, even though I know we have a good person in 

there now, that is a significant problem. 

The other thing that came to my mind was what I have heard 

in terms of pipeline and what the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is doing in terms of withdrawing on pipelines, which 

are a vulnerable area for our country. So, I will talk with you specifically about those things and how we address them. 

We also have questions about some key issues that you will be 

responsible for moving forward on which we will discuss in the 

questions and answers, and I will not go into those now. 

I will just close my opening statement by thanking you both for 

your willingness to serve. I look forward to your testimony and I 

look forward to a great relationship of collaboratively working to 

solve the problems. 

Tom and I have a great relationship. We can move a lot of things 

to help you, and we can move a lot of things through this Committee that will help streamline things and help you actually do 

your job. But we cannot do it unless you share information with us. 

So, for example, on the Integrated Product and Process Development (IPPD), you have given us some information, but the people 

that are cooperating with you in the private sector, it is not classified information but yet we cannot get a list of those people so we 

can talk with them about what their assessment is of what you are 

doing. So, doing good oversight means we actually do good oversight. So I will be visiting with you. 

I thank you again for your service and look forward to your testimony. 

Chairman CARPER. Dr. Coburn, thanks very much. 

I want to welcome Senator Johnson and Senator Ayotte. Thank 

you for being here again. You are very faithful here. I am grateful 

for that. 

Senator Warner, good morning. Senator Kaine, nice to see you, 

third time this morning. I am going to call on you, if you will, to 

introduce one of our nominees, and then I will call on Mr. 
6 

Wainstein to handle the honors for Stevan Bunnell. Mark Warner, 

welcome. How are you? 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WARNER 

Senator WARNER. Fine, Mr. Chairman. I thank you and Ranking 

Member Coburn, Members of the Committee. 

Let me make one quick editorial comment, agreeing with Senator 

Coburn. Not just at DHS but across the Administration, there are 

way too many positions unfilled at this point, and as a former Governor, the idea that you would be this far into your term and not 

having your whole legislative team filled out, or your management 

team, is something that needs to be addressed. 

You get an opportunity in this job to come out and introduce a 

number of folks, oftentimes from your State. It is rare that you get 

to come by and introduce and present somebody who has been a 

friend of over 30 years. Suzanne Spaulding and her husband, Gary, 

and their kids, Max and Charlotte, are dear personal friends of 

Lisa and I, social friends, business friends, political friends, and I 

come here unreservedly endorsing Suzanne Spaulding to this Committee for her, I think, very appropriate nomination as Under Secretary for National Protection and Programs Directorate at DHS. 

Suzanne’s parents both served in the military. Her brother, 

Doug, is here. This is a family who has been all about public service throughout her whole career. She is somebody, as I have tried 

to learn issues around national security and intelligence, that I 

have turned to in the Senate, but she is also, when I was Governor, 

someone I appointed to the Commonwealth Panel, where she advised me on issues that are at the State level very similar to what 

she will be working with this Committee on at the national level. 

She also, as I think the Chairman pointed out, has a broad bipartisan background. She worked for a long time for former Chairman 

and Senator Arlen Specter, who was a tough taskmaster on issues. 

She also worked for previous Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore on his 

Committee on Terrorism. Clearly, this kind of background, bipartisan background, her service with the CIA, her service in the private sector, I think all recommend her to the Committee. 

As, I think, Senator Coburn has indicated in his comments, I 

think you will find someone in Suzanne that will be that kind of 

active, engaged; recognizing the very important role that Congress 

plays, having had a great deal of her career not being on an Administration side but sitting behind members such as yourselves, 

trying to get out of previous Administrations the kind of information that I think you and we appropriately should and deserve to 

receive as members of oversight panels. 

Clearly, in the cyberspace, there is enormous work to be done. I 

again want to commend the Chair and the Ranking Member for 

moving forward on this issue. I think there is a new sense that this 

is an issue area that we cannot continue to punt on. We have a lot 

of overlapping jurisdiction, but under your leadership and the other 

Committees, a couple of them which I participate on, I think we 

are going to get something done. Suzanne’s role at DHS in coordinating those activities, I cannot think of an area that is of more 

importance. 
7 

So, from a professional endorsement, from a personal endorsement, from a family who has been all about service, I unreservedly 

recommend Suzanne Spaulding for this position and I hope the 

Committee will act on her nomination in a judicious and speedy 

manner. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CARPER. Thank you. That is a great introduction and 

recommendation. We value it. Thank you very much. I know you 

have a lot on your plate today, so feel free to depart if you—— 

Senator WARNER. I want to make sure my dear colleague and the 

junior Senator does not mess up his recommendation, as well, so 

I will listen to that first and then I will get out of the way. [Laughter.] 

Chairman CARPER. I was watching his lips move while you 

spoke, so—— [Laughter.] 

You guys have been doing this for a while. I do not think he will 

mess up. 

Senator Kaine. Governor Kaine. Welcome. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR KAINE 

Senator KAINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Coburn and Committee Members. It is a treat. 

This is a real example of the best and brightest, being here for 

Suzanne, and I think we often have hearings where it is about the 

best and brightest, but I do not remember doing one where I 

thought it was the best and brightest who was so particularly suited for this particular position. 

To begin, as my friend, Mark, mentioned, her family has a great 

family career in public service, both in civilian public service and 

also service in the military, her parents, her brother, her sister, 

and Suzanne. We may not do all we need to do to honor the service 

of those who serve the country in both military and civilian capacity. We learned to our horror 2 days ago that their sacrifices, including sacrifices that you do not expect to happen, but this family 

has sacrificed for public service in some really notable ways and I 

begin there. 

And, second, Mark talked a bit about her background. Suzanne 

has worked for 25 years in this field of trying to advocate for the 

Nation’s security in the private sector and in the public sector, in 

the public sector at the Federal level and at the State level. At the 

Federal level, in the executive and in the legislative. In the legislative for Democrats and Republicans and for the Senate and House. 

She has touched this issue from virtually every angle and made it 

her life’s work and her life’s passion. 

And in serving in this acting capacity, she has earned the confidence of this Administration and she has also earned the confidence of two previous DHS Secretaries, Secretaries Chertoff and 

Ridge, who have strongly weighed in on her behalf, and I think all 

that speaks very well of her nomination and I urge her to be considered favorably and promptly. 

Chairman CARPER. I want to thank you both. If you need to go, 

please do. We value your presence. We value your kind words, generous words about Ms. Spaulding and her nomination. 
8 

I am going to turn now, if I could, to Ken Wainstein. I am going 

to ask you to turn on your microphone so that we will be able to 

hear you. But I understand that you are a partner at the law firm 

of—first of all, I understand you are a friend, maybe a longtime 

friend, of a former colleague of our nominee, Stevan Bunnell, and 

I understand you are a partner at the law firm of—I want to say 

it is Cadwalader—how do you pronounce it? 

Mr. WAINSTEIN. Cadwalader Wickersham and Taft. 

Chairman CARPER. Cadwalader Wickersham and Taft. At least I 

got the ‘‘Taft’’ right. That is good. 

Previously, he served as an Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, for President George W. Bush. 

Mr. Wainstein also served as the first Assistant Attorney General 

for National Security at the Department of Justice and as the 

United States Attorney in Washington, DC. That is a great resume 

yourself. 

We are delighted that you are here to introduce your friend, your 

former colleague, Stevan Bunnell. Please proceed. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF MR. WAINSTEIN 

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

Coburn, Members of the Committee. It is an honor to appear before 

the Committee today and to introduce my friend, Steve Bunnell. 

As the Chairman just pointed out, I served for over 20 years as 

a lawyer in Federal service in a variety of different positions, and 

in all of those positions, I had the opportunity and the privilege to 

work closely with Steve Bunnell. 

But before providing my personal perspective on Steve, I would 

like to take a moment to just go through his resume and his objective qualifications for this job. 

A Phi Beta Kappa graduate from Yale University and then Stanford Law School, a prestigious clerkship with a highly respected 

D.C. Circuit Court judge, 5 years of stellar service as one of the 

standout line prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in D.C., public corruption prosecutor, counsel to Assistant Attorneys General 

for both the Clinton and the Bush Administrations, Chief of the 

whole Criminal Division at the U.S. Attorney’s Office, and then ultimately managing partner at O’Melveny. 

So, those are Steve’s pretty incredible credentials on paper. Let 

me now explain the reasons why those credentials and Steve’s 

character add up to what I think is the ideal nominee for the DHS 

General Counsel position. 

First and foremost, Steve is, quite simply, an excellent lawyer, 

one of the very best I have ever worked with. His analytical skills, 

his judgment are exceptional and they have been honed through 

years of wrestling with tough issues of law and fairness as a line 

prosecutor and also tough issues of national security policy when 

he served as a high-level Justice Department official. He has always been the first person I have sought out whenever I have 

needed sound and honest advice about a tough situation. 

Besides being a tremendous legal talent, Steve has exceptional 

leadership skills, skills that, as Senator Coburn pointed out, are 

absolutely critical in a Department like DHS, but particularly important for a General Counsel who is responsible for managing an 
9 

extended group of DHS lawyers across a wide spectrum of agencies 

and also responsible for representing the Department in the interagency process with strength and credibility. 

At every step of his career, Steve has shown himself to be a natural leader who sets an example for the rest of his colleagues. 

He has also proven himself a true government professional in the 

best sense of the word. In other words, he has shown himself to be 

a completely apolitical straight shooter, someone who always subordinates political interests to the mission and to the needs of the 

agency that he serves and his country, and that is a reputation 

that I think is well reflected in the letters of support that he has 

received from all parts of the political spectrum. 

Last and most importantly, Steve is a man of honor. He is a man 

who has got the personal character one would want in such an important and sensitive position. He is universally, and I mean that, 

universally respected and admired by all those who have ever 

worked with him, from Attorneys General he has worked with, to 

Deputy Attorneys General of both parties, to the counsel and associates at O’Melveny who have flourished under his inclusive management style. 

He has earned that admiration, in part, by just good old smarts 

and hard work, but also because he has always conducted himself 

in a way that exemplifies the qualities of decency, integrity, and fidelity to public service. His willingness to step out of a highly successful law firm practice right now and into DHS is just the most 

recent example of his selflessness and sense of duty. 

In sum, I cannot think of a better person to assume this important position and I am confident that Steve will serve with honor 

and with distinction and that the people of our country will be 

more secure, both in their safety and in their civil liberties, thanks 

to Steve’s service as General Counsel. I, therefore, give him my unqualified recommendation and urge the Committee to endorse him 

unanimously. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CARPER. Thanks for those great words. I think we already had high regard for him before you spoke, and watching you 

speak, I was watching his parents and their heads were going up 

and nodding ‘‘yes’’ in agreement. I know they are proud. 

Should we go ahead and allow Mr. Bunnell and Ms. Spaulding 

to actually give their statement? We do not do that, do we? Do we 

not swear them in? My script did not look right, so we are going 

to do it this way. We are going to swear you in. 

I ask you both to stand. I will put you under oath, and then we 

are going to ask you to proceed with your statement. Thanks. 

Would you rise and raise your right hand, please, and I would ask 

you this question. 

Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give to the 

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

truth, so help you God? 

Mr. BUNNELL. I do. 

Ms. SPAULDING. I do. 

Chairman CARPER. All right. Please be seated. 
10 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Bunnell appears in the Appendix on page 49. 

Senator COBURN. May I make a clarification to my opening statement? I said six. It was 6 percent on the CFATS, not six. Thank 

you. 

Chairman CARPER. Good. All right, Mr. Bunnell. You may proceed with your statement and please introduce your family and 

friends. We have had a chance to meet them in the anteroom, but 

please feel free to introduce them for us, too, and then we will turn 

to Ms. Spaulding. Thank you. Please proceed. 

TESTIMONY OF STEVAN E. BUNNELL,1 NOMINATED TO BE 

GENERAL COUNSEL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. BUNNELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Coburn, Members of the Committee. 

Let me also thank my good friend, Ken Wainstein, for his very 

kind introduction today and his support throughout the confirmation process. 

It is an honor for me to be here today as the nominee to be General Counsel of the Department of Homeland Security. I thank the 

President for his confidence in me and I thank the Committee for 

moving forward judiciously and expeditiously on this nomination, 

and Suzanne’s nomination, as well. 

I would also like to thank and recognize the members of my family who are here today, my wonderful wife, Laura, who has always 

been so supportive of my passion for public service despite the 

many sacrifices it imposes on her and her own successful law practice. I do not know how she does it all, but I do know that she is 

truly my better half. 

We have two sons, Philip, who is in college in California and 

could not be here today, and Daniel, who is here and is a senior 

in high school. Philip and Daniel are not only my pride and joy, 

they are also a reminder to me that the work being done on homeland security today is not just about keeping us safe in the present, 

it is about building a foundation for a safe, secure, and resilient future for the next generation and making sure that future generations enjoy not only physical security, but also the fundamental 

rights and freedoms that we all hold dear. 

I am grateful that my parents, Fred and Alice Bunnell, are here 

today. Both my parents are retired teachers. They instilled in me 

and my sisters a strong ethic of service, of giving back. They continue to be an inspiration to me. 

I would also like to thank my two sisters, Becky, who works for 

the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in Atlanta and is here 

today, and my other sister, Ann, who is a social worker in Chicago. 

I owe them a special thanks, I think, for helping me, as only siblings can, to learn at a young age how to share toys, share chores, 

and work together with people I do not command or control. 

[Laughter.] 

Those sibling experiences provided a foundation for skills that 

have served me well in life so far and are skills I am sure I will 

continue to rely on if I am lucky enough to be confirmed. 
11 

Finally, I would like to thank my wife’s parents, Rod and Carla 

Hills, for being here today and for being role models, not just for 

me, but for anyone who aspires to serve our country with distinction. 

Chairman CARPER. Did your mother-in-law not have a job in one 

of those Bush Administrations a while back? 

Mr. BUNNELL. She has had so many distinguished jobs, sir, I 

would not be able to list them all—— 

Chairman CARPER. All right. It is nice to see all your family, but 

I especially would recognize her and her service. Thank you. 

Mr. BUNNELL Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think 

they serve as a model for anyone who aspires to serve at the highest levels of government with honor and distinction. 

I am excited about the possibility of returning to public service. 

I believe my prior experience in government and my more recent 

experience managing lawyers in a leading national law firm have 

prepared me well for the diverse challenges I would face if I am 

fortunate enough to be confirmed. 

With respect to the management of lawyers, my experience includes serving as Chief of the Criminal Division in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in D.C., which is the largest U.S. Attorney’s Office in 

the country, and now practicing, managing a large office of a major 

national law firm. 

The General Counsel of DHS has a number of critical roles and 

challenging responsibilities. These include providing legal advice to 

the Secretary and the senior leadership of the Department, ensuring that the Department’s policies and operations comply with constitutional, statutory, and other legal requirements, including the 

laws that safeguard the fundamental rights and liberties of the 

American people, and leading and managing over 1,800 lawyers 

and doing so in a way that promotes morale, high performance, and 

efficiency. I think those three things go well together. 

If I am confirmed, I would be honored to have an opportunity to 

work with and in support of the tens of thousands of dedicated men 

and women at DHS who work day in and day out to carry out that 

vital mission. 

One of the things I loved about being an Assistant U.S. Attorney, 

and I mentioned this to Senator Chiesa when we met last week, 

I love standing up in court and being able to say, Steve Bunnell 

on behalf of the United States. I loved having the United States as 

a client. In fact, I loved it so much that after I left DOJ and when 

I first went to court as a defense attorney, I stood up and introduced myself on the record as Steve Bunnell on behalf of the 

United States. The judge was nice about it, but I was actually 

lucky, I think, not to be fired by my client. [Laughter.] 

If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed, one of the things that 

will mean a lot to me is once again being able to say, accurately, 

that I am a lawyer for the United States. There is no better client 

a lawyer can have. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for this opportunity to appear 

before you and I would be pleased to answer any questions that 

you or the Committee has. 

Chairman CARPER. Thank you. Thank you so much. 

Ms. Spaulding, please. Please introduce your family, if you will. 
12 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Spaulding appears in the Appendix on page 106. 

Ms. SPAULDING. Thank you, Chairman. 

Chairman CARPER. And make sure your microphone is on. 

TESTIMONY OF SUZANNE E. SPAULDING,1 NOMINATED TO BE 

UNDER SECRETARY (FOR NATIONAL PROTECTION AND PROGRAMS), U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Ms. SPAULDING. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Coburn, Members of the Committee, and thank you for 

your gracious welcome of my family. 

I am very pleased that they could be here today, my husband, 

Gary Slaiman; my daughter, Charlotte; my son, Max; one of my 

seven siblings, Doug Spaulding, who is here; my nephew, Joseph 

Paradis and his son, Cory Paradis, who is himself an inspiration 

and a role model with regard to the tremendously positive and upbeat attitude with which he greets each day. I am very grateful to 

my family for their wonderful support and my children, in particular, who put up with never having a standard routine when 

they were growing up with two parents working, and so it is really 

a pleasure to have them here and thank you for welcoming them. 

I am honored to be here today with you as the President’s nominee to be the Under Secretary for National Protection and Programs Directorate at the Department of Homeland Security. 

DHS and NPPD, in particular, is at the forefront of the essential 

mission of strengthening the security and the resilience of our Nation’s critical infrastructure, from water to electricity to communications and the information highway, and even Federal facilities, 

such as those that distribute Social Security benefits to Americans 

all across the country. 

We focus our efforts on 16 key critical sectors of our economy 

whose vital services and functions Americans rely upon in their 

daily lives. Each day, dedicated men and women at NPPD undertake this mission across the country by safeguarding Federal facilities, helping critical infrastructure owners and operators make 

wise risk management decisions, protecting civilian government 

networks, and assisting businesses facing cybersecurity threats, 

and providing leadership on the use of identity management and 

biometrics to advance our mission. 

As Acting Under Secretary of NPPD, and before that as Deputy 

Under Secretary, I have been privileged to work with outstanding 

Homeland Security officials inside and outside of government and 

at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue who share our commitment 

to DHS’s mission of safeguarding the Nation. We understand that 

effective homeland security can only be achieved in close collaboration with our partners across the Federal Government, in State, 

local, Tribal, and Territorial Governments, and in the private sector. I have worked hard to increase the effectiveness of our engagement with these stakeholders, particularly in the private sector, 

and pledge to continue these efforts, if confirmed. 

I also understand that maintaining these vital relationships with 

the private sector and maintaining the trust of the American public 

requires a strong emphasis on transparency and privacy protection. 

Working with our Senior Privacy Officer at NPPD, we endeavor to 
13 

ensure that everything we do takes into account the privacy and 

civil liberties of all Americans. 

Another of my priorities since joining DHS has been improving 

management processes and enhancing efficiencies by better integrating activities across NPPD. These efforts include co-location of 

our field forces, leveraging experience across our components to 

better understand and mitigate consequences, and integrating our 

Operations Centers, the National Cybersecurity Coordination Integration Center (NCCIC) and our National Infrastructure Coordinating Center (NICC). These Operations Centers are good examples of trusted collaboration across government and the private sector. 

NPPD cybersecurity innovation has enabled subject matter experts, law enforcement and intelligence professionals, and the private sector representatives to work together on our operations floor 

to rapidly piece together unfolding threats, get mitigation measures 

to those who can take action, and strengthening our resilience 

across critical infrastructures with human knowledge and machine 

speed. Continuing to build DHS’s cyber capabilities will be a top 

priority if I am confirmed as Under Secretary. 

Another area of particular focus has been and will continue to be 

the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards program, which 

has steadily improved since I joined the Department as Deputy 

Under Secretary. This important program had suffered from serious management concerns, but over the last 2 years, we implemented significant programmatic and management reforms, and I 

think it is fair to say that the program has turned a corner. Having 

said that, there is much to be done and I pledge to continue to 

place a high priority on making CFATS and effective and efficient 

program. 

None of these mission objectives can be achieved without a capable and committed workforce. I will continue to make it my highest 

priority to empower the dedicated men and women of NPPD with 

a clear sense of mission and the tools they need to advance that 

mission, including strong leadership and capable management. 

In addition, we must continue to recruit the best and the brightest to build our capabilities to meet the challenges we face. 

Mr. Chairman, if I may, before I close, I would like to echo your 

condolences for the loved ones of the individuals killed and injured 

at the shootings at the U.S. Navy Yard on Monday. This tragedy 

reinforces our commitment at DHS to be vigilant and determined 

as we continue to work to safeguard Americans and their ways of 

life. 

Thank you very much for the privilege of being here with you 

today and I look forward to your questions. 

Chairman CARPER. Thank you both for excellent statements. 

We have been joined by Senator Chiesa. He slipped in. I did not 

see him. He is our Senator from New Jersey. He is going to be with 

us for at least another month, and we hope longer. He is just a joy 

to work with and a real credit to his State, so I am always happy 

to be with him. 

Dr. Coburn, our staffs have been talking for a couple of days 

now, but he and I spoke today about our concerns about the quality 

of the background checks that are being performed with respect to 
14 

employees of contractors. We have seen with Mr. Snowden, now we 

have seen most tragically in the last several days situations where 

contractors had background checks performed, ended up doing 

work, and creating, as it turns out, in one case a danger to our 

country, the security of our country at a national level, and then 

most recently just a real danger to the people who work at the 

Navy Yard here. 

I want to start with you, Ms. Spaulding. Any thoughts you might 

share with us? Dr. Coburn and I agreed to hold hearings soon to 

actually look at this process to see how we can do better. And when 

you have someone who is, in this case, the deceased, the shooter 

who is deceased who had the kind of troubled past that he had, discharged from the Navy, general discharge, not good, and the kind 

of arrest record that he had, it is just very troubling. 

Any thoughts you have, at least to start off with this? Just give 

us some thoughts that you have with this issue. We are going to 

have a full hearing about it, but I would like to start off with that. 

Ms. SPAULDING. Thank you, Chairman. 

Chairman CARPER. If you would, go ahead. There you go. 

Ms. SPAULDING. Thank you, Chairman. This is a very serious 

concern and I understand—— 

Chairman CARPER. But before you do, I will ask you three questions. You answered these before, but I am going to ask you again, 

and then I will recognize you again for your testimony. This is for 

both of you. 

Is there anything you are aware of in your background that 

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

which you have been nominated? 

Ms. SPAULDING. No. 

Mr. BUNNELL. No. 

Chairman CARPER. The record should show that both have said 

no. 

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? 

Ms. SPAULDING. No. 

Mr. BUNNELL. No. 

Chairman CARPER. All right. 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? 

Ms. SPAULDING. Yes, I do. 

Mr. BUNNELL. I do, too. 

Chairman CARPER. OK. Editorial comment I would make. There 

is a recently released study that indicates again that this Department falls under the purview and oversight of about, I do not 

know, 70 or 80 different Committees and Subcommittees, which is 

way too much. We heard time and again, did we not, in the hearing 

from Secretary Ridge and others that we have to do something 

about that. So, I realize you just agreed to appear before any Committee or Subcommittee of Congress or reasonably respond. We are 

going to try to make sure that number is somewhat reduced so you 

can actually do your job. 

OK. Back to the question at hand, if you will, background checks. 

Ms. SPAULDING. Yes. Thank you, Chairman. 
15 

Chairman CARPER. Contractors. 

Ms. SPAULDING. I understand that the President has asked for 

an interagency review of that process and our Office of Security at 

the Department of Homeland Security who is responsible for the 

clearances for our workforce, I am sure we will be a part of that 

process. And the Federal Protective Service, which is responsible, 

again, for the security of our Federal facilities all across the country, will be looking at their processes very carefully in the wake of 

Monday’s events, as well. 

Chairman CARPER. All right. Mr. Bunnell, any thoughts, please. 

Mr. BUNNELL. I do not purport to be an expert on these issues 

at this point, but I would add that this is an issue that is not limited to DHS. Background checks, obviously, are an issue across the 

government. I believe the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) 

plays a major role in managing that, and so I think it is an area 

where—I am sure the Committee will explore the need for greater 

consistency and the quality standards across the board. 

Chairman CARPER. My colleagues have heard me say more times 

than they want to remember, one of my guiding principles is do everything well, try to do everything well. I like to say, if everything 

I do, I know I can do better. I think that is true of all of us. I think 

that is true of all Federal programs. And this is one area where 

we have to do better. There are a lot of people depending on us, 

counting on us. 

Mr. Bunnell, if I could, as General Counsel of the Department, 

if confirmed, your office is going to have a wide array of challenges 

competing for your attention. Included are threats to critical infrastructure, cyber attacks, airport security, responding to disasters, 

border security, just to name a few. You will also have the considerable challenge of managing 1,700 lawyers dispersed among the 

many components of still a fairly new, fairly young and very large 

Department. 

I would like for you to talk with us a little bit today about your 

past roles at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington, the Department of Justice, and also in private practice, just explain for us, if 

you will, how those different assignments and different posts have 

helped to prepare you for such a broad mission, and particularly 

an office with so many attorneys. That is a lot of cats to herd. 

Mr. BUNNELL. That is a lot of cats to herd, and lawyers are notoriously catty, or squirrelly, depending on which animal you want 

to pick. 

Chairman CARPER. I have never heard that said about Senators. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BUNNELL. You would not hear it from me. [Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. Many of them are lawyers. [Laughter.] 

Mr. BUNNELL. As you pointed out, Mr. Chairman, I have had experience in leadership and management roles in different settings 

and different size sort of groups and organizations. One of the takeaways from those experiences is the kind of basic principles of good 

leadership and management are applicable in most settings. 

So, I think focusing on the mission and being clear in terms of 

what the purpose of somebody’s work is and the values that come 

with that. So there are certain things which are not negotiable. In-
16 

tegrity, honesty, dedication, you have to have a certain amount of 

that. That is not negotiable. 

And then you have to be clear as a leader in terms of where we 

are going, and you start with the end and you reverse engineer 

back. And that, to me, I think, that kind of big picture works with 

everybody and works in all settings. 

And communicating and generating a sense of purpose amongst 

the people that you are overseeing and leading, making them feel 

that they are building a cathedral. They are not just cutting stone. 

And finding ways to communicate that, even with respect to seemingly routine things, because the way things get accomplished is by 

everybody pulling an oar and then working together as a team. 

That ethic, that kind of mindset is critical. 

My personal approach is very people-focused. When I was Chief 

of the Fraud and Public Corruption Section in D.C., I came into 

that job, it was viewed as a place that needed to be sort of energized and more active in terms of outreach. And I sat down and 

met individually with every person that I was supervising. Actually, I had a little sheet and I went through with them and I asked 

them, what it is about your job that you find rewarding? What are 

the things you feel you are good at? Where are the areas that you 

want to develop as a lawyer? What are the things that are holding 

you back? What are the frustrations? What can I do as your manager to make you more effective? And that is not only good for morale. You get ideas on how to improve things and you act on it. 

And I think I would take that same approach. Obviously, it will 

be at a higher altitude in a much larger setting, but I would do 

that with the people that I am going to interact with directly and 

I would also look for managers and leaders in the sort of chain who 

understand that and I would make sure they get the training and 

the guidance to be effective. 

Chairman CARPER. All right. Thank you. 

A followup question, if I could, and then I am going to yield to 

Dr. Coburn. Talk to us just a little bit about your goals. You already mentioned this a little bit, but I want to ask you to come 

back and followup on it a little bit more. Just talk to us about your 

goals as General Counsel and just mention more fully some of the 

things you hope to accomplish in this role in the Department. Just 

complete the picture, if you will. 

Mr. BUNNELL. Sure. Well, I mean, obviously, one important goal 

is to be an effective and valued advisor to the Secretary and the 

senior leadership, and that is obviously a top priority of the role. 

Making sure that the Department and its operations comply with 

the Constitution and the rule of law, that is fundamental to the 

role of the General Counsel. That has got to be a top priority. 

With respect to substantive issues, that is going to be driven by 

the missions of the organization. I mean, the legal function is in 

service of the larger missions. So I want to understand how best 

the legal function can serve those missions. 

And echoing something that Dr. Coburn said in his opening 

statement, I mean, a part of being a public servant is being accountable to the public and I embrace that. I do not view that as 

a distraction. I view that as inherent in the role. And if you are 
17 

in the public service business and you do not want to be held accountable to the people, there is a problem there. 

So, one of my goals is to make sure that mindset is instilled into 

our work and our culture as much as possible within the Office of 

General Counsel (OGC), and to the extent I can influence larger 

parts of the Department, because I really think that is fundamental to good, open, transparent government. It is the way the 

American people get confidence in what we do. 

Chairman CARPER. All right. Thank you for those responses. Dr. 

Coburn. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you. 

Are both of you aware of the Japanese-initiated management 

style called Continuous Process Improvement? Have you ever heard 

of that? 

Mr. BUNNELL. I cannot say I have, sir. 

Senator COBURN. That is how Toyota became the largest auto 

business in the world, and I will just share with you a short little 

vignette. I have been trying to put this into the Department of Defense (DOD) for years, and one segment of the Air Force yesterday 

that handles about $45 billion a year in expenditures has now instituted that and some things that have come about through that, 

because the real problem in DHS is morale and morale is a function of management. Actually, it is a sign of poor management. 

When you have low morale, you have bad management. 

This division in the Air Force cut $1.6 billion beyond the sequester this year and is the happiest group in the Defense Department 

around the country. And the reason they did it is they used smart 

management techniques. 

So, one of the things I would like to hear from each of you, go 

and find out about this management style that Mr. Toyoda actually 

implemented, and every major business 25 years ago in this country started doing, and we have very little of it in the Federal Government, but what it does is it creates buy-in from the lowest person on the chain, much as you described. But it is a technique that 

actually streamlines your organization. 

The other benefit, as we all know, is the Pentagon is the only 

agency that cannot audit itself, and this segment of the Air Force 

is now auditable, because you cannot manage what you cannot 

measure. 

What I would like is a commitment that you would at least look 

at that in terms of incorporating it into both managing 1,700 lawyers, but also the thousands of people that are under you, Ms. 

Spaulding, that are going to require a leadership change. What it 

does is it does exactly what Steve described in terms of getting 

buy-in and building a team. So I would love to see you do that. 

I am going to spend a few minutes with you, Steve, if I can, just 

going through a list of questions, and if I do not finish them, I will 

submit them for the record. 

One area in particular is the EB–5 program at Regional Centers 

are business entities that receive $500,000 contributions from each 

EB–5 investor, visa applicant, pool them and make investments in 

businesses that are supposed to create jobs. They are allowing 

somebody the ability to come in. 
18 

In a briefing to my staff, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) officials told us that they could not 

shut down a Regional Center based on fraud or national security 

concerns, that they did not have the ability to do that. That is, 

even if they were concerned that the Regional Center was committing crimes or helping spies or terrorists get into the country, they 

could not shut it down. 

In August, USCIS leadership told us that they could not shut 

down an EB–5 Regional Center based on fraud or national security 

concerns. That is their testimony to my staff. 

In your questionnaire, you stated that USCIS had the authority 

to deny a regional application when a Regional Center applicant 

fails to demonstrated that the Regional Center will promote economic growth. Are there any other circumstances under which you 

believe USCIS has the authority to deny a Regional Center application or investor application? 

Mr. BUNNELL. Thank you, Dr. Coburn, for that question. I have 

a general understanding of that program. I know it is a complicated program. It had various iterations over a period of, I believe, about 20 years, and I think it is definitely a program that 

could benefit from examination. 

My understanding of exactly what the legal authorities are to act 

with respect to fraud and national security risks, which I can certainly see how there could be some, I do not have a specific view 

at this point. I just have not had an opportunity to have the inside 

perspective. But you have my commitment that I will look at that. 

It is obviously a front-burner—— 

Senator COBURN. I will forward the rest of these questions. It is 

interesting. Congressional Research Service (CRS) told us that they 

believe you have the authority to do that now, even though USCIS 

says they do not, or they have been told they do not. So I will forward you a list of questions for the record, if I may, and have you 

look at it. It is not fair to pin you down on details of that in this 

hearing. 

Mr. BUNNELL. Yes. Well, I will say that I would welcome an opportunity not to be a naysayer as an attorney and be able to tell 

people you can do something you thought you could not do. 

Senator COBURN. OK. A key provision of the Department of 

Homeland Security Appropriation Act of 2013 requires the Department to provide this Committee with copies of reports sent to the 

House and Senate Appropriations Committees. Tom and I actually 

got that put in so we could actually know what is going on. Oftentimes, we send reports to the Appropriations Committee that are 

not shared with anybody else, especially the Committee that has 

the responsibility for it. Yet, some components in DHS have informed my staff that they interpret this section only to cover those 

reports signed by the Secretary, not the other reports that are 

going up, excluding any reports issued to the Appropriations Committees by those underneath them, like the Deputy Secretary and 

heads of the components. 

I am especially troubled by that because that was not the intent 

of Congress. That was not why we put it in. Tom and I are not 

looking for things to criticize. We are looking for things to fix. And 

so I would appreciate your response to that, No. 1, and if you do 
19 

not feel like responding to it now, a comprehensive response on the 

record afterward. 

Mr. BUNNELL. Well, let me just say that I can certainly appreciate the frustration that situation creates. My sense is that it is 

related to the problem that I think you both have highlighted, of 

we have so many different Committees operating at the same time, 

maybe fighting for their turf more than they are fighting for making DHS as efficient and focused as it can be. 

I will certainly take a look at the specific legal issue and also, 

frankly, look at ways that we can reach accommodations that allow 

the Committee to get the information that you need to do your job 

without perhaps antagonizing some other component of the Congress. It is obvious, we are sort of going to be, I think, in the middle a little bit on some of these issues. That is my sense. 

But I appreciate what your frustration is and we certainly want 

to work with you. 

Senator COBURN. Well, I would just remind you that this Committee’s authority is the broadest in the Congress. This is the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, and we 

have broadened that specifically, intentionally, in this Committee 

in the areas that we have gone. 

So you have my commitment, and I think probably I can speak 

for Tom, we are not going to be asking you questions that are not 

important to us. We are not going to give you extra work to do. 

And I have not talked with Tom Carper on this yet, but I think 

you have way too many Committees demanding information from 

you, and as far as the Senate, I am going to work, and I hope Tom 

will work with me, to limit the number of Committees that you 

have to respond to so that, in fact, you can spend more time managing your Department rather than being on the Hill. 

Mr. BUNNELL. We would all appreciate that very much, I am 

sure. 

Chairman CARPER. All right. Thank you. And I look forward very 

much to working with you on that, Tom. 

I am going to go to Senator Johnson—— 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CARPER [continuing]. And then yield to Senator 

Chiesa. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHNSON 

Senator JOHNSON. Let me just give a couple of statistics that 

Senator Coburn was just talking about. The Aspen Institute, a task 

force organized by that organization, said that the Department of 

Defense, which has a budget 10 times the size of the Department 

of Homeland Security, reports to 36 Committees. The Department 

of Homeland Security reports to over 100. And in the 112th Congress, there were 289 formal hearings. So I think the first thing we 

ought to do is look inward and say, what does Congress need to do 

to become far more effective and efficient in our oversight capability. 

Let me start out, first of all, by thanking both of you for being 

willing to serve. In my short time here in Congress, I am always 

impressed—I am heartened by the fact I am impressed by the quality of the individuals that are willing to serve their Nation when 
20 

I realize there are far more lucrative things that you can be doing 

with your careers. So, I truly appreciate that. 

Ms. Spaulding, you talked about the essential mission of the Department, and I agree with that. In order to actually accomplish 

that essential mission, the Department also has to be very efficient 

and effective, which, by and large, is not an attribute that we apply 

to government. I have certainly learned in my business career that 

the maximum point of managerial influence is at the point of hiring. 

I want to expand a little bit on what Senator Coburn talked 

about, the oversight capability. I understand how inefficient it is, 

but also how critical it is. I am a novice when it comes to oversight 

compared to Dr. Coburn, but one area—and, by the way, from my 

standpoint, you never know what area you are going to be asked 

and really asked to look at in terms of oversight. 

In my case, with my former Subcommittee, it started with the 

hearing on Cartagena. As a business person, if we have that kind 

of problem in my business, I would have gotten to the bottom of 

that in a week. It has been a year and a half and I still have all 

kinds of unanswered questions. And as we have gone down that 

rabbit hole, trying to figure out what happened in Cartagena, and 

looking at internal investigations and reports of investigations by 

not only Secret Service, but then the Office of Inspector General 

(OIG), there are many troubling aspects. 

So, I guess, first of all, Mr. Bunnell, I would like to ask you, 

what do you believe is the role of the Department of Homeland Security General Counsel in relation to the Inspector General? 

Mr. BUNNELL. Well, I will start by saying that as a former Federal prosecutor, I spent a lot of time working with Inspector General offices and I understand the importance, not only of their role 

as sort of one of the—it is kind of a three-legged stool of oversight. 

There is the direct oversight from the Committee, there is the Government Accountability Office (GAO), and there is the IG. I think 

those three things are working well together. You get a powerful 

engine of oversight. And an element of that for the IG is they need 

to be independent. They need to have credibility. They need to 

come in and ask hard questions of people that they do not otherwise have to please in their day-to-day lives. 

So, the relationship needs to be collaborative and cooperative 

but, in some ways, arm’s length, because there needs to be some 

independence there. I mean, I would see the General Counsel Office’s role really being on the prevention of waste, fraud, and abuse, 

primarily trying to make sure that your processes and procedures 

reduce risk. And then if there is a specific instance, an allegation 

that something, some wrongdoing has occurred, I would assume 

that would normally go in the first instance to the IG for their investigation and the IG would have to work with the OGC folks and 

would have to work with the IG to make sure the IG is getting everything they need. 

Senator JOHNSON. Let us say there is, hypothetical, a specific investigation being undertaken by the Inspector General. Would the 

Department of Homeland Security General Counsel have any role 

in terms of advice in that type of investigation? 
21 

Mr. BUNNELL. Well, I think my understanding is that the Inspector General has his own counsel, his or her own counsel, and that 

person is independent, does not report to the General Counsel. But 

we would certainly be available, and, I assume, would often be— 

‘‘we’’ being the Office of General Counsel, if I am fortunate enough 

to be confirmed—the expertise of the General Counsel’s Office 

would certainly be available to the IG if they want to understand 

the way a statute has been interpreted and they need to drill into 

a specialized area. 

Senator JOHNSON. Yes. I am not an attorney, but I think the Inspector General Act of 2008 States that the IG shall obtain legal 

advice from a counsel either reporting directly to the Inspector 

General or another Inspector General. 

Mr. BUNNELL. Right. 

Senator JOHNSON. So, I guess the question I am asking is should 

the General Counsel of the Department of Homeland Security have 

any contact with the Inspector General during any particular report, or should it be totally separate? 

Mr. BUNNELL. Well, I do not think a total wall of separation 

would normally be necessary. I think there is a lot of value in making sure that the—the Inspector General has an enormous challenge when they have a specific case. The agents working on that 

case need to come up to speed on the intricacies of a particular 

operational area, particular authorities, and if they have questions 

or they have requests to be briefed on something, I mean, it strikes 

me as a good idea to have the General Counsel do that so it is done 

right and it is done quickly so they do not have to spend 6 months 

learning the area before they can figure out what happened. 

Senator JOHNSON. But, again, why would you not have a totally 

independent counsel to the Inspector General providing that advice 

as opposed to—again, I am concerned because I think we have seen 

what I would believe would be improper contact between the Inspector General’s Office and the General Counsel of the Department of Homeland Security. I am highly concerned about that and 

I am trying to figure out what that wall of separation really ought 

to be to maintain the independence of the Inspector General. 

Mr. BUNNELL. Yes. I am obviously not privy to the specifics that 

are troubling you, and I can certainly imagine situations where the 

communication would not be appropriate. But just as a broad brush 

matter, I do not see a problem with having the IG have an opportunity to seek advice from OGC. Otherwise, there is a danger that 

you then have to essentially replicate the expertise of OGC inside 

the IG, to a certain extent, and that might not be efficient. So, 

there is a balance there, as there are in many things. But there 

certainly should not be an effort by OGC to influence the outcome 

of and investigation—— 

Senator JOHNSON. That would be a bright line problem, I mean, 

improper, if not illegal. 

Mr. BUNNELL. Absolutely. The IG is the person who is supposed 

to find out what the facts are. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. Thank you, Mr. Bunnell. 

Senator COBURN. Could I just ask a followup, which begs the 

question, leadership at the General Counsel’s Office ought to give 
22 

very strict instruction for cooperation with an IG investigation, 

would you agree? 

Mr. BUNNELL. Absolutely. 

Senator COBURN. All right. 

Mr. BUNNELL. In fact, lawyers sometimes get a bad rap in terms 

of being kind of something that slows down, say, the production of 

documents or providing information. One, they can be proactive in 

raising that to a top priority for the people in the operational components, and two, sometimes they can help focus in—the goal is not 

to sort of produce a dump truck of information and then let the IG 

find the needle in the haystack. Sometimes you can hone in on, 

what is your priority? Let me get you that first. And that will actually—if you do that in good faith, you facilitate development of the 

facts, and that is in everyone’s interest. 

Senator JOHNSON. Can I make one last point? 

Chairman CARPER. Sure. 

Senator JOHNSON. Again, getting back to the efficiency of oversight, what I have certainly seen during this whole Cartagena investigation and our efforts at oversight is by not having the cooperation of the Department or the Inspector General’s Office, it 

has just forced us to ask for more and more and more documents, 

things that—I recoil. I mean, when I see the request for information, I do not want to go down that road. 

So I guess that would be my point, is if we can really have that 

cooperative relationship, and again, I have the greatest respect for 

Senator Carper and Senator Coburn and really for this Committee 

wanting to be cooperative because we understand that essential 

mission. So I guess I am just really asking at this moment of hiring 

to, please, get your commitment to be transparent. Work with us 

so that we do not have to overburden you with all those types of 

requests, because that is the natural reaction. When I become suspicious and I am not getting the answers, that is when you start 

really digging, and I really do not want to go down those roads, 

quite honestly. Thank you. 

Chairman CARPER. Senator Chiesa, you are recognized, please. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CHIESA 

Senator CHIESA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning to 

both of you and congratulations. I certainly appreciated the chance 

to meet with you and to discuss your credentials, which I think are, 

for both of you, outstanding. 

And the fact that you are willing to make this commitment to 

public service is a really great thing, especially when your mission 

is keeping us safe, because when you boil down your Department’s 

mission, it is keeping the people that live in this country safe. It 

is an overwhelming task and it seems like we are reminded almost 

weekly about the different threats that are out there, and we know 

that through the great efforts of the Department, so many of them 

get squashed before anything happens. 

And I also want to make sure that I thank your families, because 

I know that any time you enter into these positions, the demands 

are great, and without the support of your families, you cannot do 

it. So, thanks to the families, as well, for their commitment and 

their willingness to let you do this, because I know you have to ask 
23 

for permission. I have had to do it throughout my career, so I understand that. 

We had a chance to talk about a number of things and I want 

to start with Ms. Spaulding to talk about cybersecurity. It is something we hear about and something that we know is sort of creeping into our everyday lives. You and I have a chance to discuss a 

little bit the importance of the Department reaching out to the private sector and having those discussions. Could you talk to the 

Committee a little bit about your thoughts in interacting with the 

private sector to make sure that we are doing everything we can 

as a Department to eliminate or reduce, as best we can, the threats 

of cybersecurity. 

Ms. SPAULDING. Absolutely. Thank you, Senator. And you are absolutely right. As I indicated in my opening statement, there is 

probably no more important collaboration in cybersecurity than 

what needs to take place between the government and the private 

sector. And we work at this every day to improve, continue to improve that relationship and our ability for the government and the 

private sector to understand the comparative advantages that each 

of us brings to the table to meet this challenge. 

And we do not operate in the same environments. We do not necessarily assess risk and manage risk in the same way. But we do 

have a shared goal and it is on that basis that we need to continue 

to come together with a clear sense of those roles and responsibilities based on those comparative advantages, a clearly developed 

work plan, and a clear understanding of our priorities and our 

shared goals. 

As I indicated, our National Cybersecurity and Communications 

Integration Center, our operations floor, has seats for cleared private sector representatives who are there, then, to see the information as it comes in, to help us understand that information, help 

us to quickly develop mitigation measures and get that out much 

more broadly throughout the critical infrastructure sectors. And 

that actually has worked very well, but we need to continue to 

work that. 

We need to continue to have these relationships at all levels. So, 

particularly in the energy sector, we have worked very hard to sustain a working relationship with the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) 

level. Those individuals are in a position to assess risk across the 

enterprise, and so it is particularly important that they understand 

the nature of the threats that we see and that they face and be 

able to make those resource allocation decisions and ensure that 

the folks that work for them are making wise decisions. 

But also at the Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) and 

Chief Information Officer levels, very technical ways that we work 

with them and make sure that we are providing them with, for example, machine readable threat indicators that they are able to 

very quickly put into their systems, that we are working collaboratively on spurring innovation and developing technology. 

So those relationships are critically important and they are a 

high priority for us. 

Senator CHIESA. Good. I know they will continue to be while you 

are serving. 
24 

Mr. Bunnell, you and I had a chance to talk about information 

sharing. It is something that this Committee is focused on all the 

time because we know that unless important and carefully vetted 

information gets where it needs to get, we can have problems in 

our security. 

What I wanted to talk to you about is what role can you play as 

the General Counsel and the chief advisor to the Secretary in making sure that the Secretary and the other key leaders who have access to the information that we need to stay safe are sharing it in 

a way that is meaningful and is accomplishing the mission of making sure that information is getting where it needs to get as quickly 

as possible? 

Mr. BUNNELL. Well, I could not agree more that information 

sharing is one of the sort of core missions of DHS, and one of the 

reasons it was created was to promote more of that. I remember 

in the wake of September 11, 2001, one of the roles that I had at 

DOJ was to try to draft some guidelines to help implement some 

of the information sharing provisions of the PATRIOT Act, which 

involved the ability of Federal prosecutors to share grand jury material with the intelligence community or share Title III wiretap information with the intelligence community. You would think that 

would be simple, but it actually was an enormous process, a lot of 

stakeholders, a lot of perspectives. So, I think I am sensitive to how 

what seems easy, share information, can actually be difficult to implement. 

I think there is an important role for the lawyers, which is to figure out how to define sharing that everyone is comfortable with 

and protect information so you are respecting the concerns of whoever collected it, and finding ways to reduce classification on information that is in the national security realm so it can be shared 

more broadly, and hopefully having clear, widely accepted kind of 

channels that everybody is comfortable with, because one of the 

things you see is that some of the turf instincts—which, by the 

way, come from pride in your work oftentimes, so it is not necessarily an unhealthy thing that people feel a proprietary sense 

about their sources and methods. I think that is sort of a healthy 

thing there you do not want to squash. But that sort of pride can 

sometimes shape somebody’s view of what is authorized for sharing. 

And so there is a role for the lawyers sometimes to say, no, actually, there is a way to share this information legally, and I use the 

example of grand jury information. Preexisting documents are not 

grand jury protected. It is the actions of the grand jury that—I am 

speaking to you as a former Assistant United States Attorney 

(AUSA), so you know that Rule 6(e) covers that. So you can find 

a way to share the content of something that is involved in a grand 

jury investigation without violating the legal prohibition on sharing 

grand jury information, and it really requires an attitude that 

needs to be instilled and sometimes some good lawyering, but 

sometimes it is just really common sense. 

Senator CHIESA. Sure, and I hope that you will do everything you 

can so that pride never interferes with making sure this information is getting where it needs to get and that you create as clear 
25 

of channels as you can while you are there for that information 

flow to be as accessible to everybody as possible. 

So, thank you, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CARPER. You bet. 

Let us stick with cybersecurity for a while. I am glad you raised 

that. Let me just ask, Ms. Spaulding, would you just reflect on 

what Mr. Bunnell just said and add to, take away, edit, editorial 

comment. Please. 

Ms. SPAULDING. Well, I will not make any editorial comment, on 

the advice of my counsel. I am a lawyer in recovery, and I am not 

practicing currently, and I am very respectful of that line. 

But I applaud the direction in which Mr. Bunnell is going with 

his remarks as an advocate for information sharing, and understanding that it is, indeed, at the core of our mission throughout 

the Department, but particularly in NPPD. That is what we are all 

about. We are all about getting information out to our stakeholders, again, whether at the State and local, tribal and territorial 

government level or, most importantly, in the private sector. 

And so, we very much appreciate having our counsel close at 

hand to make sure that we are, again, respecting the privacy and 

any legal restrictions in place on information sharing, but helping 

us find a way to accomplish that mission because it is absolutely 

vitally important. And also at the Federal level, that we exchange 

information in a very timely way with our Federal inter-agency 

partners. 

So that is absolutely essential for our mission. We, as you know, 

Senator, would like to see Congress enact some clearer legal authority to clarify the ability for that two-way information exchange 

between the private sector and the government, and then we would 

look to our attorneys to make sure that we are implementing it in 

an appropriate way. 

Chairman CARPER. We have three committees in the Senate that 

share jurisdiction in the cyber world. They include Intelligence, 

they include Commerce, and this committee, as well. 

I think of a comprehensive cyber policy as having at least—being 

comprised of six discrete pieces. One of those is a critical infrastructure and whoever came up with the idea of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) being the one to help develop the framework to lead us to best practices within the protection of our critical infrastructure, I think made a very good choice. 

Another piece is information sharing, which we are talking about 

here, between private sector entities and also with us in government, to make sure that there is a good flow of information and 

that we are incentivizing folks within the private sector—especially 

those that are dealing with their own controlled critical infrastructure—to follow those best practices and not to feel that they are 

going to be put out for public ridicule for having screwed up or not 

provided the very best protection of those elements of the critical 

infrastructure that they control. 

Another piece is the government domain, the .gov domain, what 

kind of job that we are doing protecting that, not just doing it like 

taking a photograph once a year and saying OK, how are we doing 

on this 1 day, but to make sure we are doing continuous monitoring. 
26 

Another piece where we want to make sure that DHS, the department that you all hopefully will help lead, that they will have 

the ability to hire good talent and retain good talent in the cyber 

world. There is a need for a better job in research and development 

(R&D). We think we have a role in helping that. 

And finally, there is an area that involves data disclosure, not so 

much our domain in this committee but it is certainly an important 

element. 

Dr. Coburn and I have been working with our staffs and trying 

to work on—we call it the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA)—which deals with the .gov domain. We are trying to figure out for the Department of Homeland Security, what 

kind of clear statutory authority do you need? Could you, either 

one of you or both of you—but I will start with you, Ms. 

Spaulding—just talk about how we can help, at the legislative side, 

in this area? 

Ms. SPAULDING. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much and thanks 

to both you and Senator Coburn for all of your hard work in trying 

to help us move this forward in an appropriate way. 

You have well articulated key areas where we need some help, 

and FISMA is one of those. And what that does currently is authorizes, under the guidance and policy direction of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), DHS to work with the departments 

and agencies across the Federal Government to assess their networks, assets and systems. 

Currently, that assessment takes place every 3 years and produces a fat notebook result, a checklist that leads to report cards 

that get published in the newspaper for these agencies. 

What we are working toward, as you know, is this continuous 

diagnostics and mitigation, which would be out on the departments’ 

and agencies’ systems to assess and diagnose the health of their 

networks and systems and assets from a cybersecurity perspective 

and provide them with an analytic result within 1 to 3 days, as opposed to every 3 years. Every 3 days or so that would give them 

a refreshed view of the security of their network systems and assets. 

This would be a tremendous advancement, but the statute provides limited flexibility and without changes we believe we will still 

require that three-ring binder at the end of the day. 

In addition, there are some departments and agencies, well most 

departments and agencies—and indeed, 23 of the Chief Financial 

Officer (CFO) Act agencies 23 of the 23—have entered into memorandums of understanding (MOUs) to implement the continuous 

diagnostics and mitigation (CDM) program. But there are some departments and agencies who have legal constraints that they believe get in the way of allowing DHS to move forward with them 

on CDM. And so clarification of that authority would be extremely 

helpful, as well. 

Chairman CARPER. I am going to dwell on this for just a moment. 

There was some discussion on this a week ago during our hearing 

on the anniversary of September 11, 2001. I want to stay on it just 

for a little bit. 

Unlike the specific authority that defines the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation (FBI) or the National Security Agency’s (NSA) work 
27 

in the cyber world, the Department of Homeland Security’s authority comes really more through vaguely written laws. Clarifying 

DHS’s existing roles to mitigate against and respond to cyber attacks is something that some of us really hope to address in the 

legislation that is working its way through here. 

Let me just ask, how important is it for Federal agencies like 

DHS to have clear, explicit lines of statutory authority for its activities? 

Ms. SPAULDING. Senator, thank you very much, it is vitally important. Departments and agencies, again in the .gov world, who 

want to collaborate and participate in these efforts need to be 

mindful of their legal authorities. They all have wise general counsels who are looking carefully at the authority. And so while we 

may be able to make a very reasonable argument that the authority is there, they may disagree without clear statutory authority. 

The same is true in our interaction with the private sector. Particularly these days private sector general counsels are looking very 

carefully to ensure that as they share information, collaborate with 

the government toward these shared goals of cybersecurity that the 

government is approaching them in ways that are completely consistent with their legal authority. And that is appropriate and that 

is what we expect. 

But as a result, we need to make sure that that legal authority 

is very clear so they are not reluctant to do what is appropriate 

and to safeguard our networks and systems. 

Chairman CARPER. Thanks. When we come back on the next 

round, Mr. Bunnell, I am going to explore with you information 

sharing. How do we incentivize folks to do that? What kind of liability protections are called for? Just be thinking about that. Dr. 

Coburn. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you. 

Will you give us a list of those agencies that seem to think they 

have a statutory problem? Because another way to skin this cat 

may be changing some of their statutes, rather than change. . . . 

One of my big concerns, and I have voiced it in a lot of hearings, 

is when Homeland Security was created, it was created to be a 

counterterrorism force. In your testimony, you talked about all-hazards. I will just put this up and you can contest the statement or 

not. This country does not have enough money for Homeland Security to be an all-hazards agency. There is not enough money. There 

is not ever going to be enough money. 

So my priority, as Ranking Member on this Committee, is to get 

us back to being very good at what our primary goal is, which is 

counterterrorism. 

I just would wonder about your thoughts on that. We have spent 

$35 billion on grants to States for things other than counterterrorism, and we do not have any metrics on that. So we do not know 

if we are any safer or not, because there has been no measurement, 

no assessment, no accounting for that. 

What are your thoughts on my statement about concentrating on 

counterterrorism first and foremost, rather than being an all-hazards agency? And what the NPPD is really about counterterrorism; 

correct? I mean, that is what the NP—protectorate—is about. 

What are your thoughts on that? 
28 

Ms. SPAULDING. So Senator, counterterrorism continues to be one 

of the Department’s absolute highest priorities. And I attend every 

week an interagency meeting on counterterrorism and engage with 

our folks who are focused on counterterrorism on a regular basis. 

And we are very involved with their activities, and that is a key 

part of NPPD’s mission. There is absolutely no question about it. 

Having said that, cybersecurity is also a very key part of our 

mission, and one that is of growing importance. 

Senator COBURN. That is counterterrorism. 

Ms. SPAULDING. As I indicated in my opening statement, I believe that the overarching mission of NPPD is to strengthen the security and resilience of our Nation’s critical infrastructure. 

And as I said, that is a focus on making sure that the functions 

that the American public relies upon are not disrupted by either 

a terrorist attack, physical sabotage, or by a cyber incident. But 

understanding how to assess and mitigate those risks requires that 

we understand the consequences of those disruptions. That is a 

critical part of that total risk assessment and risk management decisionmaking. 

At NPPD, we have been working on that since the inception of 

the Department. In our Office of Infrastructure Protection (IP) with 

our critical infrastructure owners and operators to understand the 

ways in which those functions can be disrupted, the interdependencies across critical infrastructure sectors, the cascading consequences. Those consequences more often will result from a hurricane, a flood, an earthquake, from other natural disasters. And understanding our ability to be in there working with those critical 

infrastructure owners and operators to understand the impact of 

those disruptions is a critical part of informing how we understand 

the impact, potential impact, of cyber incidents, the potential impact of sabotage. 

So I really think that a holistic approach to understanding our 

critical infrastructure sectors and the ways in which we can mitigate those consequences. It is important to address the threats. It 

is important to understand and address the vulnerabilities. But it 

is equally important to understand and work on finding ways to 

mitigate those consequences, which is ultimately what it is all 

about. 

Senator COBURN. I guess where I take exception, I think the likelihood of a counterterrorism event or a cyber event, which is 

counterterrorism, is much more likely than a natural disaster. One 

of the reasons we have not seen it is because we have been good 

and lucky so far. 

The other thing I would say, in response to your question, is we 

are going to understand what is going to be needed to mitigate if 

we look at the cyber threat and the counterterrorism threat because the results are the same. If you disrupt a pipeline, you disrupt a water supply, if you disrupt electricity transmission. We 

learn what needs to be done to mitigate if we play those scenarios 

out. 

I believe our concentration ought to be there instead of the other 

areas. 
29 

One question I have, and I have several other questions that I 

will get for you for the record and give you time to respond to 

them. 

Some duplicative efforts that we are doing that compete with the 

private sector, and how we handle that and make sure it is there, 

some of the alert and indicator services offered through the NPPD’s 

Enhanced Security Services (ESS), the Engineering Consulting 

Service (ECS), and the Industrial Control System Cyber Emergency 

Response Team (ICS-CERT) parallel services that are already offered in the private sector. 

While the Federal Government has this real important role to 

play in cybersecurity, should we be providing services at taxpayer 

expense that the private sector is already out there marketing? 

How do we handle that? 

Ms. SPAULDING. That is a very good question, and it is something 

we are very mindful of. We have no desire to compete with the private sector marketplace. Quite the contrary, our goal is to promote 

that marketplace and to drive innovation in that marketplace so 

that is there to meet the needs of the private sector and our critical 

infrastructure owners and operators. 

Having said that, we are also mindful that we have an obligation 

to ensure that these services and this information is available to 

businesses of all sizes. The mom and pop shops and the small businesses find very valuable the free vulnerability assessment tools, 

for example, that the Department can provide. 

And so that is what we balance, as we go forward here. We try 

to lead the marketplace. We try to push the marketplace. If the 

marketplace catches up and can deliver these goods and services, 

I completely agree with you, we should get out of that business and 

move on to the next thing. 

Senator COBURN. One final question. There are several open recommendations from the IG on cyber. Two of them date back to 

2010. One, establish a consolidated multiple classification level portal that can be accessed by Federal partners that includes real-time 

incident response related information and reports. That is one, and 

I know you are working on that. We have had those conversations, 

so you do not. . . . 

Establish a capacity to share real-time Einstein information with 

Federal agencies to assist them in analysis and mitigation. 

Comment on the second one, if you would. I think you agree with 

those recommendations. We have had conversations about that. 

Ms. SPAULDING. We do, indeed, Senator. And we are working 

hard to close those recommendations, to accomplish the objectives 

reflected in those recommendations and to close them off. And I believe we have provided to the Committee, to your staff, the status 

of each of those recommendations. And I share your interest in getting those closed as quickly as possible. 

I will say that NPPD has placed a very high priority over the 

last couple of years on closing open recommendations. We closed 

127 recommendations over the last couple of years, but we need to 

continue to really push that process. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you. The rest of my questions I will submit for the record. 

Chairman CARPER. OK, thank you. 
30 

Mr. Bunnell, I telegraphed my pitch, information sharing liability protection. Any thoughts, please? 

Mr. BUNNELL. Well, one sort of—first of all, as we have discussed, it is obviously kind of a core focus of what DHS is all about, 

is being good at information sharing. 

It occurs to me that there is sort of a management phrase that 

says you have to go slow to go fast, that I think sheds some light 

on how you go about promoting that. 

Chairman CARPER. Here in the Senate of late, we are doing a 

really good job of going slow. My hope is that some day soon it will 

be going fast. 

Mr. BUNNELL. Well, you have to walk before you can run, right? 

What that phrase means to me is that you, in times of crisis, you 

invest in clarifying roles. You invest in a plan so you are ready to 

respond. And you invest in relationships whether it is within DHS 

or whether it is external to DHS—in ways that build trust. So that 

when something happens, when the fire alarm goes off and people 

have to go to the incident, they know that their colleagues have 

their back. They know that everybody is working together as a 

team and everybody’s role is defined. 

So just as a kind of broad brush way of thinking about it that, 

I think, is one of the critical elements. And it is a strategy that the 

legal function has to be a participant in but by no means is the 

only participant. 

That may have been a little bit more broad than you were interested in, but that is how I—as a sort of approach—that is my 

mindset coming into it. 

Chairman CARPER. That was a little more broad than I had 

hoped for. Talk to us more specifically, if you will, about the kind 

of liability protection that might be needed to incent private sector 

entities that are involved in owning and managing critical infrastructure, and those that are not, to share information. Can you 

just be more specific, please? 

Mr. BUNNELL. I, to a certain extent, would defer to Suzanne. 

Chairman CARPER. And I will ask her the same question. This 

is one of the issues that is dividing. On the Intelligence Committee 

you have the Chair of the Committee, you have the Ranking Republican. This has been dividing them as they try to find common 

ground. It has been dividing them for months. 

Anything you can do to help us narrow that divide would be 

great. 

Mr. BUNNELL. I am generally aware of things like the SAFETY 

Act, which are designed to reduce the concerns that the private sector might have about liability associated with the things that we 

want the private sector to do to make the country safer. 

In terms of the specific provisions of that law or other laws that 

need to be looked at or enhanced, I am not in a position today to 

get very granular with you other than that I completely agree with 

you to the extent that the focus is we need to have clear swim 

lanes, we need to have clear authority. It needs to be simple and 

clear for it to maximize its effectiveness. 

So in that regard, I would echo some of the things that Suzanne 

said earlier. She has a better sense of the practical reality obviously in the critical infrastructure space. 
31 

I do think that—well, the legal issues are—you have to have 

them, but they are the beginning and not the end of the problem. 

Chairman CARPER. Suzanne Spaulding, can you add anything to 

that? 

Ms. SPAULDING. Well, you are absolutely right, Senator. We do 

need to ensure, with regard to information sharing, that we have 

very clear authorities. I think that the best protection against liability is to have absolutely clear authority in statute for that information exchange, clearly defined parameters for that exchange, 

what is appropriate, what is not appropriate, clearly defined privacy protections within that framework. 

But it may be that in order to appropriately incentivize that information sharing, that some targeted liability protection may be 

needed. I think what I would urge is that be very targeted because 

the system creates liability for good public policy reasons, generally. And so any liability protection that goes into place should 

be very targeted. 

But the information sharing, as we have talked about today, is 

absolutely vital. And so we very much appreciate your work, Mr. 

Chairman, and the Committee’s work to find a way forward on 

this. 

Chairman CARPER. Thank you. 

If you all are confirmed, and I hope you will be, we will talk 

about this some more, I am sure. 

I want to come back to the issue of morale. Every Wednesday 

morning there is a bipartisan breakfast that maybe—I do not 

know—10 or 20 Senators participate in, Democrat and Republican. 

It is called a prayer breakfast. There is some prayer and there is 

some scripture, people of different faiths. But there is just a lot of 

personal sharing. It is a good way for us to get to know one another 

better. 

I usually do not get to go because it is from 8 to 9, and I am usually on a train. I go back and forth almost every night to Delaware 

and it is hard for my train to get here before 8:45 unless I get up 

at about 3 in the morning and I do not do that often. 

But anyway, they asked me to speak this morning. It was a real 

honor for me to share with my colleagues. 

One of the things I talked about was an NPR study that came 

out about a year ago. They had done a survey around the world— 

someone, not NPR, but someone else. They were just reporting on 

it on NPR. The question that was asked in the survey was what 

do people like about their job. What is it that makes people like 

their work? 

People had all different kinds of answers, as you might imagine. 

Some folks said they liked getting paid. Some folks said they liked 

getting to go on a vacation. Some folks like the pension. Some folks 

said they were happy they had health care. Some people said they 

liked the people they worked with. Others said they liked the environment in which they work. 

But do you know what most people said? Most people said the 

thing that caused joy or satisfaction in their work, for most of 

them, was that they felt like the work they were doing was important and they felt like they were making progress. 
32 

My admonition to my colleagues this morning was that the work 

that we are doing here is very important. We are not making the 

kind of progress that we need to make. 

I love to ask people who have been married a long time the secret to being married a long time. I get great answers, I get hilarious answers, and I get some very poignant answers, as well. 

Among the best answers I have ever gotten are the two C’s, communicate and compromise. 

That is not only the secret for a long union between two people, 

it is also the secret to a vibrant democracy. 

Now, that is a long lead-in to the morale challenges that we face 

at the Department of Homeland Security. Dr. Coburn talked a bit 

about management as part of the solution. That is part of it. A big 

part of it is leadership. Frankly, we do not have any Senate-confirmed leadership at the top of the Department, as you know. 

Secretary Janet Napolitano has run off to California to run the 

University of California system. It is a great job, she will do well. 

She did a very fine job, along with Jane Holl Lute, in running this 

Department for the last 4 years. A lot of progress—GAO reports a 

lot of progress in the terms of the high-risk list, a lot of things have 

been addressed. It is an auditable—the finances are auditable now, 

and my hope is we will get an unqualified audit within the year. 

So real progress is being made. 

In terms of morale for employees, I think it is right at the bottom. 

So one of the things I think we need to do is confirm the leadership through good people that the President has nominated. He 

needs to nominate somebody to be secretary and he has not done 

that yet. He has nominated someone, I think a very good person, 

to be the deputy secretary. 

Senator Johnson was talking about the IG’s office in the Department of Homeland Security. We have not had a confirmed IG for 

over 2 years. We have had one nominated, that nomination was 

stalled by someone in this Committee, and then that person finally 

gave up and the Administration gave up and that nomination was 

withdrawn. Maybe for good reasons. I am not here to judge the 

quality of the candidate. 

Another person was vetted for the position of OIG head, a person 

from California, apparently a good person. They got near the end 

of the vetting process and said I do not think I want to do that, 

I do not want to get into that mess in Washington. Why would I 

move my family to Washington to put up with all of this? Don’t any 

of you get cold feet here. That person said enough, I do not think 

I want to do that. 

So now we have not had a confirmed Inspector General in this 

department for 2 years. The one who is Acting, if you will, as the 

Inspector General is under investigation by a Subcommittee of this 

Committee. They are allegedly doing their own investigation of the 

President’s nominee for Deputy Secretary of the Department of 

Homeland Security. I do not know if you know him at all, 

Alejandro Mayorkas, Ms. Spaulding. 

But some of our colleagues are wrestling with how to proceed on 

the nomination, whether to proceed or not. The last inspector gen-
33 

eral who was confirmed by the Senate actually sent a very strong 

letter in support of Alejandro Mayorkas. 

If you know him at all, if you can share any insights into his 

abilities, his work ethic, his integrity, that would be great. 

Ms. SPAULDING. Thank you for that opportunity, Mr. Chairman. 

I did not know Alejandro Mayorkas before he was nominated to 

this position. But as part of his preparation we, at NPPD, had the 

privilege to bring him up to speed on our issues. And as you know, 

they are very complex issues. There is a lot of activity underway 

in NPPD. We had a number of briefing sessions with him. 

I found him to be incredibly engaged, clearly passionate about 

this mission area, very smart, a very quick study, and a very decent individual. I was very optimistic about the kind of leadership 

that Alejandro would bring to the Deputy Secretary position. 

I am grateful for the work that you are doing to try to move forward on his confirmation and I urge the Committee to do that. 

Chairman CARPER. I said to some of my colleagues, here we are 

a week after September 11, 2001. We are in the midst of this crisis 

at this time with Syria, we are going to start firing rockets at 

them. We have this terrible tragedy two miles away at the Navy 

Yard. We do not have a confirmed Secretary, we do not have a confirmed Deputy Secretary. It is not a good situation. 

I feel a sense of urgency and it is just important that all of us 

feel that sense of urgency. 

I want to ask, to me one of the elements affecting workforce morale, you have these 22 disparate agencies we have kind of 

glommed together to create the Department of Homeland Security 

less than a decade ago. They are, for the most part, still scattered 

to the winds. On Monday, on my way into D.C. from Delaware the 

Senate was shut down, the Capitol was shut down—at least on our 

side—for a while. So as we drove in—normally I take the train but 

as we drove in from Southern Delaware I said the Capitol is shut 

down for a while, why don’t we go to the Department of Homeland 

Security and actually get briefed there. 

As you know, the agencies are scattered throughout Washington. 

But most of the folks are, a big part of the folks are—including the 

Secretary’s office and some of the senior leadership, it is like a rabbit’s warren to get from one place to the other. 

If you get confirmed, Mr. Bunnell, you might want to get a GPS 

or something. It will help you navigate through that system, because it is not easy. 

But there is an effort to try to create a campus at St. Elizabeth’s 

and to actually, over time, bring everybody in. How important is 

that, in terms of enhancing morale? And if we want to really be 

one DHS, how important is that to getting us to that spot? We 

have the Coast Guard there. They just had the ribbon-cutting a 

month or so ago. They are there. It is a beautiful start. 

Your thoughts on that? 

Ms. SPAULDING. Mr. Chairman, NPPD alone is in, I believe, 10 

different buildings just in the National Capital Region (NCR), 

which presents some significant challenges. As I indicated, one of 

my priorities is integrating our activities across NPPD, helping all 

of our components and the folks that work in NPPD understand 

how their missions relate, how they can leverage each other’s re-
34 

sources and expertise in these difficult budget times. We have to 

do that. That is a critical part of our efficiencies. And it is made 

more difficult and more challenging by being physically spread out 

around the region. 

So being able to come together, as much of DHS as could fit within that St. Elizabeth’s compound, would I think make a very significant difference and be of significant help in bringing this still 

very young department together. 

Chairman CARPER. Mr. Bunnell, any thoughts on this? 

And also, the other question I am going to ask you, is to talk a 

little bit about your own leadership style and how that might be 

seen as affecting—hopefully positively—the morale of the folks that 

you would be leading. Go ahead, please. 

Mr. BUNNELL. Sure. Let me just first put in a quick plug for Ali 

Mayorkas. I know you asked about it before. 

Ali used to be a law partner of mine. 

Chairman CARPER. Is that right? Oh, that is right. 

Mr. BUNNELL. I feel like—I will say, when people ask me why 

do you want to do this job, one of the reasons is there are people 

like Ali Mayorkas at the Homeland Security Department, and I 

would love to work with people like that. 

I think he is as good as it gets, in terms of public servants. He 

had an outstanding reputation when he was the U.S. Attorney in 

L.A. He was a career guy that was made the U.S. Attorney. That 

does not happen very often. 

In fact, my introducer, Ken Wainstein, who does not really have 

a dog in this fight, reminds me that he actually has written a letter 

in support of Ali, and knows Ali. I do not know if you have anything you would like to say on the record, since we have been invited to put in a plug for Ali. 

He would be a wonderful Deputy Secretary. 

Chairman CARPER. Mr. Wainstein, I did not realize that. Thank 

you. We have received a lot of letters. 

Mr. WAINSTEIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity. 

I was a law partner with Ali as well, at O’Melveny and Myers. 

But I knew of him as the U.S. Attorney. 

As Steve said, some of the things that I have described about 

Steve, that made me so fond and have such admiration for Steve, 

apply to Ali as well. 

Long-time career guy. He was in the trenches in the U.S. Attorney’s Office and rose up to become the U.S. Attorney. He looks at 

an issue apolitically. He looks at what is best for the mission and 

what is best for his agency. He did that in the U.S. Attorney’s Office. He jumped into what is a very difficult job at the beginning 

of this Administration and has done a fabulous job with it, hence 

the promotion or hopeful promotion. But he has done it in a way 

that showed that he has really put the mission and management 

above anything else. 

That is the kind of person you want at DHS. I am disappointed 

that there has been a delay, but I know Ali and I know that this 

issue is going to go away and he is going to do a bang-up job. 

Chairman CARPER. From your lips to God’s ears. That would be 

good. Thank you all for saying that. 
35 

Let me turn to management, your own leadership style and how 

it might enhance morale and, frankly, be an example to other leaders in the department, please. Ms. Spaulding. 

Mr. BUNNELL. Was that to me? 

Chairman CARPER. Excuse me, go ahead, and then I will come 

back to Mr. Bunnell. 

Mr. BUNNELL. I am sorry. 

Ms. SPAULDING. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your emphasis on 

this. This employee morale has been an issue that I have spent a 

great deal of time and focus, effort and energy on, as has the team 

around me within NPPD. 

The employee survey results from 2010 were being analyzed by 

the team when I came on board in 2011. The results had just come 

out. They were already hard at work understanding those results, 

trying to make sure they understood what the workforce was trying 

to tell them, and implement an action plan to address those concerns. 

So for example, a clear reflection of concern about the quality of 

leadership, particularly at the supervisor and secondary supervisor 

level within NPPD. And so we have beefed up our training of our 

supervisors and came up with a leadership and a performance culture training class which I have been fortunate enough to participate in. I go in the morning, I talk with the students in the class, 

our supervisors that are there, about my leadership goals and management objectives, and listen to their concerns. I come back at the 

end of 2 days to hear the results of what they have gotten out of 

the class. It is a terrific step forward for us in making sure that 

we have equipped our supervisors who have stepped up to this responsibility with the tools they need to do a good job. 

As I tell them, I think we often in Washington have an image 

of leadership that is an organization with the leader at the top of 

the pyramid and everybody in the organization is working to support that leader. I realized years ago that that was a fundamental 

misconception and we need to flip that pyramid on its head. 

As leaders, we need to remember that we are there to empower 

and enable the individuals who are out there getting our mission 

done. I am a firm believer that it is our responsibility to do everything that we can to make sure, as I said, that they have a clear 

sense of mission. I totally agree with you that these people who 

have chosen public service, which I think is so honorable, did so because they wanted to make a difference. 

I feel a tremendous obligation to make sure that I do everything 

that I can so that at the end of the day, when they leave work, they 

feel as though they are making progress, that they are making a 

difference, that they are part of a team and an effort and a mission 

that is bigger than themselves and that matters. 

So I could not agree more. 

Chairman CARPER. That is great. 

Ms. SPAULDING. It is absolutely important. 

I would just add, just to clarify the record, one of the areas where 

leadership has been particularly important, is with our CFATS program, our Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards program, 

where we brought on new leadership just before I came onboard. 
36 

The current leadership there, David Wulf, has really done an 

outstanding job. 

The statistics, which I want to clarify for the record, on the 

progress they have made over the last 2 years, they have actually 

authorized seven—— 

Chairman CARPER. You are anticipating my next question and 

my last question perfectly. So just go right ahead, and then I will 

come back to Mr. Bunnell. We are going to close with CFATS. 

Ms. SPAULDING. I appreciate your indulgence because the team 

has worked so hard to make this kind of progress, I think it is important to get into the record. 

They have authorized over 700 site security plans of chemical facilities across the country. They have inspected over 400, and they 

have approved nearly 300 site security plans for our facilities 

across the country. 

They have made remarkable progress in streamlining and expediting that process without sacrificing the national security imperative. 

Having said that, we know that we need to do even better because the bulk of our work needs to be done at tiers three and four 

and, while we have nearly completed the highest risk tiers, we 

have a lot still to get through and we are working hard to come 

up with processes that will allow us to get through those much 

more quickly. 

And we are working closely with our private sector stakeholders 

on that effort. 

Thank you. 

Chairman CARPER. I said earlier, if it is not perfect, make it better. Thank you for making it better, and for everybody that has 

been a part of that. 

Mr. Bunnell, leadership? Very brief on this, very brief. 

Mr. BUNNELL. Sure. 

Chairman CARPER. Leadership and morale. 

Mr. BUNNELL. I would just commend you for your role in trying 

to find a campus where everybody can get together. One of the 

things that I have found that is very helpful, in terms of promoting 

morale, and I think it is part of my management style, is management by walking around. 

And right now—— 

Chairman CARPER. I try to do that myself, always have. 

Mr. BUNNELL. Then you know how valuable and effective it can 

be. 

Right now, I think DHS is in a situation where, at least for the 

leadership, it is management by driving around or flying around. 

And that is a level of challenge that we do not need on top of all 

of the challenges, the history and size and all of the other things. 

So I think once we get everybody in the same place, that will 

help a lot. Because it is those small, casual interactions that build 

morale as much as the big speeches. So I commend you for that. 

In terms of things that I will do within OGC, I do not know specifically what, if any, morale issues there are in OGC as opposed 

to the Department writ large, but I will certainly be focused on it 

because morale is not just about feeling good. It is about doing your 

job well, performing well, being efficient. That is what makes peo-
37 

ple feel good about their jobs. And that happens to be good for the 

American taxpayer, too. 

Chairman CARPER. OK. That is a good note to close on. 

We have some other questions for the record. The hearing record 

will remain open until noon tomorrow for the submission of statements and questions for the record. I would just ask that you respond promptly to those. 

My hope is to move these nominations quickly. That is, I think, 

a goal that is shared by Dr. Coburn. 

Both—Mr. Bunnell, both you and Ms. Spaulding, have filed responses to your respective biographical and financial questionnaires. You have answered pre-hearing questions submitted by the 

Committee, had your 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. 

With that having been said, we thank you both for your presence 

today, your preparation for this hearing, for your answers, and for 

the answers you will provide to subsequent questions that are 

asked. 

Again, to all the family members that are here, moms, dads, 

spouses, children, other friends and admirers, thank you for being 

here to have their back during the course of what I think has been 

a very good hearing. 

Mr. Wainstein, especially thank you for your comments on Ali 

Mayorkas and actually for, Steve, for yours and Suzanne, too. We 

need to provide leadership for this department and we need to provide it soon. This is a shared responsibility. The White House, the 

President needs to do his job, we need to do ours. 

And on that, I will say class dismissed, the Committee is adjourned. 

Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 11:31 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(39) 

A P P E N D I X 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 
183 
184 
185 
186 
187 
188 
189 
190 
191 
192 
193 
194 
195 
196 
197 
198 
199 
200 
201 
202 
203 
204 
205 
206 
207 
208 
209 
210 
211 
212 
213 
214 
215 
216 
217 
218 
219 
220 
221 
222 
223 
224 
225 
226 
227 
228 
229 
230 
231 
232 
233 
234 
235 
236 
237 
238 
239 
240 
241 
242 
243 
244 
245 
246 
247 
248 
249 
250 
251 
252 
253 
254 
255 
256 
257 
258 
259 
260 
261 
262 
263 
264 
265 
266 
267 
268 
269 
270 
271 
272 
273 
274 
275 
276 
277 
278 
279 
280 
281 
282 
283 
284 
285 
286 
287 
288 
289 

Æ