U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,

U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202–512–1800, or 866–512–1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

51–780 PDF 2010

S. Hrg. 111–676 

NOMINATION OF HON. RAND BEERS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

OF THE

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

NOMINATION OF HON. RAND BEERS TO BE UNDER SECRETARY, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

JUNE 2, 2009 

Available via http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

( 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

ROLAND W. BURRIS, Illinois 

MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

MICHAEL L. ALEXANDER, Staff Director 

JEFFREY E. GREENE, Counsel 

KRISTINE V. LAM, Professional Staff Member 

DEBORAH P. PARKINSON, Professional Staff Member 

BRANDON L. MILHORN, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

ROBERT L. STRAYER, Minority Director for Homeland Security Affairs 

JENNIFER L. TARR, Minority Counsel 

TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, Chief Clerk 

PATRICIA R. HOGAN, Publications Clerk and GPO Detailee 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Hearing Clerk 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Lieberman ........................................................................................... 1 

Senator Collins ................................................................................................. 2 

Senator Akaka .................................................................................................. 12 

Senator Burris .................................................................................................. 14 

Senator Voinovich ............................................................................................. 15 

Prepared statements: 

Senator Lieberman ........................................................................................... 25 

Senator Collins ................................................................................................. 27 

WITNESSES 

TUESDAY, JUNE 2, 2009 

General John A. Gordon, U.S. Air Force, Retired ................................................. 3 

Hon. Rand Beers to be Under Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security ................................................................................................................. 5 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Beers, Hon. Rand: 

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

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 28 

Biographical and financial information .......................................................... 33 

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

Letter from the Office of Government Ethics with an attachment .............. 94 

Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record ..................................... 96 

Letter of Support from Hon. Michael Chertoff ............................................... 100 

Gordon, General John A.: 

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


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER

ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
(1) 

NOMINATION OF HON. RAND BEERS 

TUESDAY, JUNE 2, 2009 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:35 p.m., in room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Joseph I. Lieberman, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Lieberman, Akaka, Burris, Collins, and Voinovich. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN LIEBERMAN 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Good afternoon and thanks to all of you 

for coming to this hearing today for the nomination of Rand Beers 

to be the Under Secretary for the National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). 

Rand Beers is a highly qualified nominee with a record of more 

than 30 years of public service, dating back to his service as a 

Marine in Vietnam. He has served in Democratic and Republican 

Administrations, working as the Senior Director for Combating 

Terrorism at the National Security Council (NSC) during the Administration of President George W. Bush, as Assistant Secretary 

of State for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs 

during the Clinton Administration, and as Director of Counterterrorism and Counternarcotics at the NSC during the Administration 

of President George Herbert Walker Bush. 

More recently, Mr. Beers played a key role in the transition at 

the Department of Homeland Security from the Bush to the Obama 

Administrations, which by all accounts was about as good as a 

transition can possibly be, and since then has been a chief counselor to Secretary Napolitano. 

If confirmed, Mr. Beers will be required to apply this wealth of 

experience to harness and provide vision for the National Protection and Programs Directorate, which includes quite a wide variety 

of responsibilities, including cyber security, infrastructure protection, foreign traveler screening, and emergency communications. 

The President’s fiscal year 2010 budget proposes to expand this Directorate further by moving the Federal Protective Service (FPS) 

into it. 

Let me just talk about a few of the areas that I hope and I know 

will be priorities, if confirmed. Cyber security is clearly one of 

those. The threat of cyber attacks is an urgent national security, 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
2 

homeland security challenge, as we know. Last week, President 

Obama announced the results of the 60-day review of cyber security policy and government structures. I am grateful for the President’s focus on this issue and particularly reassured that, as the 

President sees it, the Department of Homeland Security has a central role to play in any government-wide cyber security strategy, 

and the NPPD is the part of the Department that will lead its efforts in that regard. I look forward to hearing what Mr. Beers 

thinks the Department’s role should be and how he will ensure 

that DHS has the necessary tools to perform the job. 

NPPD’s critical infrastructure responsibilities are equally challenging because the majority of the Nation’s critical infrastructure—our energy, communications, and transportation networks, 

all potential targets of terrorism—are owned and operated by the 

private sector. The Department must work closely with the private 

sector to ascertain that the appropriate security measures are 

being taken. The lesson from Mumbai, London, and Madrid is that 

terrorists will seek out soft targets, such as hotels, shopping malls, 

and inner-city transit lines, so we must accelerate our efforts to 

harden those targets. 

NPPD also plays a critical role in our Nation’s security through 

the U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (USVISIT) program, which requires foreign nationals to undergo biometric screening as they enter the country. The 9/11 Commission 

concluded that three of the September 11, 2001, hijackers had overstayed their U.S. visas and concluded that requiring biometric exit 

screening was vital to homeland security. In fact, if we had implemented a biometric system to detect overstays prior to September 

11, 2001, there is some reason to believe that we could have prevented the attacks of September 11, 2001. I am very concerned that 

almost 8 years later, despite the clear need for a viable biometric 

exit system, we still do not have such a workable system in place. 

The Committee will continue to work with the Department of 

Homeland Security to ensure that a secure system is expeditiously 

deployed, of course, at the Nation’s airports, and I look forward to 

discussing that with Mr. Beers today. 

Many other challenges face the NPPD, including the future of 

our chemical security regulation system, the Directorate’s challenge 

in hiring and retaining qualified staff, and the overdependence, as 

I see it, on contractors to do what otherwise might be considered 

inherently governmental work. I look forward to working closely 

with the new Under Secretary to reauthorize and strengthen the 

Department’s Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards 

(CFATS), the chemical security site program. 

So, bottom line, Rand Beers is a very experienced public servant. 

If confirmed, he will need all that experience to be put to use as 

the Director of the NPPD to protect our homeland security. 

Senator Collins. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLLINS 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I join the Chairman 

in welcoming Rand Beers as the nominee today. As the Chairman 

has indicated, the scope and importance of the NPPD’s responsibilities are daunting. The Directorate is charged with ensuring sucVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:17 Oct 29, 2010 Jkt 051780 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\51780.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT

ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
3 

cessful implementation of the chemical facility security program 

that was authorized in 2006 due to the work of this Committee. 

This program is one that needs to be reauthorized this year. It also 

is charged with assessing the risk to our Nation’s critical infrastructure, managing voluntary private sector coordination programs to achieve the goals of the National Infrastructure Protection Plan, leading the Department’s effort to protect our Nation 

against improvised explosive devices and working to combat terrorists’ use of such explosives in the United States, and protecting the 

Nation’s cyber networks. 

The Chairman and I have focused a great deal on that last responsibility, cyber security. It is both critical and complex. The 

complexity arises not just from the technical nature of the issue, 

but from the disjointed approach that the Federal Government has 

taken. In the course of the coming months, cyber security responsibilities across the Federal Government will be the subject of 

much debate as we consider the Administration’s plan and alternative legislative proposals to strengthen our cyber security efforts. 

DHS’s relationships with the critical infrastructure sectors that 

both provide for and rely on information technology services will remain invaluable in ensuring a coordinated defense against cyber 

attacks. I look forward to hearing from Mr. Beers about how, if 

confirmed, his management of DHS’s cyber security efforts will be 

affected by the White House’s new cyber security initiative. 

NPPD also manages programs that benefit components across 

the Department, including, as the Chairman has indicated, the USVISIT program that screens the biometrics collected from visitors 

to the United States against immigration and criminal databases. 

US-VISIT has been struggling for years with implementing a solution to collect biometric information on foreign travelers departing 

the country, a responsibility that is required by law but has not 

been fully realized. 

Should Mr. Beers be confirmed, these are just some of the critical 

challenges that are awaiting his leadership and considerable expertise. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you, Senator Collins. 

I would like to welcome retired General John Gordon of the U.S. 

Air Force, who is here to introduce our nominee. We are honored 

to have you take the time to be here for that purpose, and I call 

on you at this time. 

TESTIMONY OF GENERAL JOHN A. GORDON, U.S. AIR FORCE, 

RETIRED 

General GORDON. Thank you, Chairman Lieberman, Senator Collins. Good afternoon. I am a retired Air Force officer and a former 

Deputy Director of Central Intelligence, a former Secretary of Energy, a former Homeland Security advisor, and so I now am a rather interested observer of the national security and homeland security scene without a lot of responsibilities, and limited responsibilities. But today, I have the most pleasant responsibility I have had 

in a while, which is to introduce my friend and my colleague, Rand 

Beers, to the Committee as you consider his nomination to be 

Under Secretary of Homeland Security. 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
4 

To cut to the chase, I know of no individual who is better qualified nor anyone more suited to take on the vital task of protection 

of America’s critical infrastructure, as you both have said, the central responsibility of this position. Nor in my book is anyone more 

suited to be a member of Secretary Napolitano’s leadership team. 

I offer my unqualified and total support for his confirmation. 

Now, to be entirely transparent and with full disclosure, Mr. 

Beers is a close friend and a longtime professional colleague. We 

have worked together in the State Department and in the White 

House for several Presidents, and even so, I do not believe that I 

suffer from any lack of objectivity in considering his suitability and 

qualifications for this vital position. 

First, and I do rate this first, Mr. Beers is a patriot. He has committed his entire working life to the security of our Nation, beginning as a Marine officer and a rifle company commander in Vietnam, where he served 4 years. Virtually his entire career since 

then has been in government, largely at the State Department and 

the White House, and he always found his true reward in the service he gave to our Nation. He is the very model of an American 

committed to good government, willing to give his time, talent, and 

energy toward that end. 

Mr. Beers is a man of integrity. He can always be counted on to 

do the right thing, to give his objective and well-considered advice. 

Mr. Beers is proven under fire, and I refer not only to his combat 

experience in Vietnam, but his ability to keep his head and work 

calmly and effectively through some of the toughest national security and foreign policy situations, and he experienced many of these 

literal crises as he served in senior positions in peacekeeping, 

counterterrorism, counternarcotics, intelligence, and Middle East 

policy. 

These items all help define the character of the man, but can he 

actually do the job? Yes, I am certain he can. Mr. Beers is certainly 

among the most experienced if not the most experienced candidate 

for a senior position in Homeland Security. As mentioned already, 

he has had huge responsibilities in counterterrorism, counternarcotics, political and military affairs, peacekeeping and intelligence, continuously since he joined the Foreign Service in 1971. 

As you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, he served four Presidents in the 

National Security Council. 

Most recently, Mr. Beers has had the opportunity, I think, to reflect a bit about his experiences and about how the complex issues 

of national and homeland security all fit together, or at least how 

they should fit together. For several years, he was President of National Security Network, an organization that he founded to bring 

together experts seeking to foster discussion of progressive national 

security ideas. At the same time, he was an adjunct professor at 

the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. My sense is that 

this time of reflection, observation, and teaching has given him a 

new and broader perspective of the national homeland security, 

along with a renewed commitment to the urgent task ahead, as 

well as a deeper appreciation of the long-term strategic goals we 

must achieve. 

If confirmed, we can expect Mr. Beers to immediately be effective 

with no spin-up time needed. He co-led the transition team, as you 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
5 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Beers appears in the Appendix on page 28. 

mentioned, Mr. Chairman, at the Department for the incoming administration where he really looked into every aspect of the new 

and still evolving Department. And today, he serves as counselor 

to Secretary Napolitano, advising her on the full breadth of the 

Secretary’s mission. I suspect he has identified no shortage of 

issues worthy of his time and effort, and I commend the list that 

both of you put forward, headed in many ways by cyber security 

in addition to the more standard infrastructure protection items. 

Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned at the outset, I am not an entirely 

disinterested observer in this nomination before the Committee 

today. The Department needs the very best leadership and the full 

commitment of true professionals as it comes of age and reaches its 

full stride in what are still very dangerous times, and the country 

needs the very best to take on these tough jobs. Rand Beers is one 

of the very best, and I respectfully commend him to the Committee 

to become Under Secretary of Homeland Security. Thank you. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks very much, General Gordon. We 

honor you as a former advisor here. The statement was a very 

strong one on Rand Beers’ behalf, and we thank you for your service. 

We know that you are busy. If you would like to stay, we would 

be happy to have you. If you need to depart, we understand that 

and send you off with our thanks. 

General GORDON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Rand Beers has filed responses to a biographical and financial questionnaire, answered pre-hearing questions submitted by the Committee, and has had his financial statements reviewed by the Office of Government Ethics. Without objection, this information will be made part of the hearing record with 

the exception of the financial data, which are on file and available 

for public inspection in the Committee’s offices. 

Mr. Beers, our Committee rules require that all witnesses at 

nomination hearings give their testimony under oath, so I would 

ask you to please stand at this time and raise your right hand. 

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

truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you, 

God? 

Mr. BEERS. I do. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you, and please be seated. We 

would be happy to hear an opening statement at this time and 

would welcome also, of course, the introduction of any family or 

guests you have with you. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. RAND BEERS 1 TO BE UNDER 

SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. BEERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Senator 

Collins. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before your Committee for confirmation. I want to thank the President of the 

United States for nominating me and Secretary Napolitano for recommending my nomination to the President. 

I also want to take this opportunity to introduce the members of 

my family, without whom I surely would not be here. First, my 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
6 

wife, Bonnie Beers, my son, Nathaniel Beers, and my brother, 

Chuck Appleby, who have all come here to stand behind me. In 

fact, my brother has flown all the way from Vienna, Virginia. 

[Laughter.] 

Sir, as you and others have said, I have spent about 36 years of 

my life working for the U.S. Government, and it is a profession 

that I feel honored to have been part of, and I am grateful for the 

opportunity with the President’s nomination and hopefully with 

your confirmation to continue to serve the government in some capacity. The position for which I have been nominated is at the center of protecting America in the 21st Century, and I hope that my 

experience has prepared me amply in order to undertake this. The 

areas of responsibility, starting with cyber, are indeed serious and 

challenging. 

As the President said on Friday, this is a challenge which has 

serious threats to the very national security of our country and requires a major response. The President has afforded the notion 

that the White House would have a coordinating function, but that 

the departments and agencies would continue to be responsible for 

the implementation of that policy. And as you all are aware, DHS 

has a major role both in the civilian side of the U.S. Government 

and in the private sector for drawing together the best defensive 

measures and the best partnership to make this Nation’s cyber infrastructure secure. For that civilian side of this ledger, I am a firm 

supporter and believer and believe that DHS is the logical place for 

that responsibility to reside. 

With respect to infrastructure protection, it is and represents the 

core of our post-September 11, 2001, protection system, with the 18 

Sector Coordinating Councils, the four Cross-Sector Councils, as 

you mentioned, the National Infrastructure Protection Plan and 

the Sector Security Plans, which are now underway, the Bomb Prevention Unit, and, of course, the chemical section. 

US-VISIT is at the heart of our identity management for U.S. 

visitors and immigrants and as such is linked not just to several 

of the elements within the Department of Homeland Security, but 

with the Departments of State, Justice, and Defense, as well. And 

DHS has two very important pilots in this area about which you 

have spoken, the Air Exit and the Land Exit programs, with which 

we will be working if I am confirmed. 

And finally, the Risk Management and Analysis Office, which 

represents the brain trust for risk management tools and concepts 

to help the Department decision makers make the best possible decisions against the risks that we have using the resources, both 

monetary and personnel, to meet them. 

We also have, as you mentioned, the possibility of the Federal 

Protective Service becoming part of NPPD, should Congress pass 

the required legislation for its shift. That, too, represents an important addition to the infrastructure protection responsibilities of 

NPPD. 

I think in my briefings in NPPD that it will be an exciting place 

to work, with very talented people facing enormous challenges with 

great opportunities, and I hope that the Committee will give me 

the opportunity to be part of that team in confirming me as the 

Under Secretary. 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
7 

Thank you very much, and I stand open to your questions. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks very much, Mr. Beers. 

I am going to start my questioning with the standard three questions we ask of all nominees. First, is there anything you are aware 

of in your background that might present a conflict of interest with 

the duties of the office to which you have been nominated? 

Mr. BEERS. No, sir. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Do you know of anything personal or otherwise that would in any way prevent you from fully and honorably 

discharging the responsibilities of the office to which you have been 

nominated? 

Mr. BEERS. No, sir. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. And finally, do you agree without reservation to respond to any reasonable summons to appear and testify 

before any duly constituted committee of Congress if you are confirmed? 

Mr. BEERS. I do, sir. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you. We are going to start with a 

round of questions of 7 minutes each. 

Mr. Beers, let me just get some old business out of the way before we get to the new business and just do so for the open record 

here. As you know, questions have been raised about something 

that happened when you were on the NSC staff. In 1996, you received a preliminary briefing regarding efforts by the Chinese government to influence congressional elections in the United States 

that year. The briefing you received later became a point of contention between the White House and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), in part because your superiors were not informed 

about the briefing at the time it occurred. 

I wanted to ask you at the outset here if you could set that experience in context and really to ask a question in a way with the 

hardest edge to it. Is there any reason why your involvement in 

that should lead the Members of the Committee to have second 

thoughts about confirming your nomination? 

Mr. BEERS. Senator, thank you for the opportunity to speak on 

the record about this. I have not to this point spoken on the record 

about this issue with the exception of the questionnaire, which you 

all asked me to fill out, and I welcome this opportunity to correct 

some of the characterizations and misstatements that occurred in 

that public discussion. 

I was serving as the Senior Director for Intelligence Programs in 

the National Security Council staff. One of the responsibilities of 

the Senior Director was to be briefed on a regular basis by the Federal Bureau of Investigation with respect to counterintelligence activities that the Bureau had responsibility for. In the summer of 

1996, I was briefed along with my FBI assistant by two FBI agents 

about a new activity that they were looking at concerning, as you 

mentioned, the possibility that the Chinese government was seeking in some way to influence congressional elections. The briefing 

itself was very preliminary, very sketchy, very limited in detail. 

The Bureau was unable to tell me if they had identified any individual Members of Congress or any particular congressional races 

that were being focused on, and the answer to that was that they 

were not. 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
8 

As a result of that, I determined that there was not a great deal 

of information available but that it was something that I should 

continue to monitor and asked that I continue to be informed about 

further developments in that process. 

Later on that year, there was a public controversy about Chinese 

efforts to influence the reelection of President Clinton and Vice 

President Gore, and in the course of the media discussion of that, 

this particular piece of information and briefing got swept up in the 

broader discussion, although I must say some of the media reporting suggested that this particular briefing actually referred to the 

presidential election rather than, as you stated, congressional elections. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. But there was no reference to the presidential election in that briefing that you received? 

Mr. BEERS. None whatsoever, sir. And as a result of that, Sandy 

Berger, who was then the National Security Advisor, together with 

the White House General Counsel, launched an investigation to 

find out what was known, what was not known, how it had come 

to pass. 

In the course of that particular investigation, my colleague indicated that it was his recollection that the FBI told us that we were 

not to brief more senior members of the White House staff. I indicated that I did not remember that particular injunction, and I indicated that had that particular injunction been communicated to 

me, I would have ignored it had I thought that the information was 

significant enough that more senior members, particularly the National Security Advisor, needed to be briefed of that. 

That particular piece of information came to the media’s attention and those remarks about not being permitted to brief up were 

attributed to me. The FBI then indicated that in no way were those 

briefers ever instructed to make that kind of statement, and that 

became part of the media swirl about all this. But I was asked not 

to talk to the press during that period, so I never had an opportunity to correct the record with respect to my own involvement in 

that. 

In retrospect, looking back, I certainly think that my judgment 

at the time would probably have been better served had I briefed 

Anthony Lake, but that was my judgment, and I have to accept responsibility for that. 

As a result of that, Sandy Berger gave me a verbal reprimand 

in the spring of 1997, and that was, as far as I know, the end of 

the matter, and it was not a subject of my previous confirmation 

hearing. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. I appreciate that very much. So as I hear 

it, in addition to nothing being mentioned about the presidential 

election, the reason you did not report up was that this was one 

of a number of items that the FBI was briefing you on at that 

meeting, is that right? 

Mr. BEERS. That is correct, sir. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. And that the level of the briefing was 

general or vague? 

Mr. BEERS. Yes, sir. 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
9 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Obviously, everybody has to make their 

own judgments, but certainly for myself, that is no obstacle to supporting your nomination. 

I am heading to the end of my time, but let me just take us to 

cyber security. There was a lot of concern, certainly on this Committee and I hope more broadly, that the review and change in policy that we thought might be forthcoming from the President last 

week might undercut the role of the Department of Homeland Security. I was personally very relieved to see that it did not happen, 

at least not in what I read. Of course, for me, the reason is not just 

turf, it is that this is a very critical element of Homeland Security 

and it will continue to be so for some time to come, to protect both 

our non-defense Federal cyberspace and the private sector that 

DHS has a primary responsibility for. 

Just give me your reaction. You were inside—am I reading it 

right? Do you feel that the role of the Directorate you would head, 

if confirmed, in the Department is being at least sustained, if not 

strengthened, and that you will not be undercut by the Cyber Security Coordinator in the White House? 

Mr. BEERS. Yes, sir, that is my understanding as recently as this 

morning in a conversation with John Brennan that I had before I 

came up here for my confirmation hearing. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Yes, on both counts? 

Mr. BEERS. On both counts, that is correct. There was no realignment of roles and missions of the Department, and it is the view 

in the White House that the Department of Homeland Security will 

continue to play an absolutely essential role in the protection of 

America’s cyber infrastructure. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Very good. Thank you. Senator Collins. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to go back to the issue in 1996 on the briefing that you 

received from the FBI agents who alerted you to the interest of 

Chinese operatives in influencing our congressional elections. I was 

not clear from your answer to Senator Lieberman whether you 

were saying that the FBI briefers told you not to report the information up the chain. 

Mr. BEERS. Senator Collins, I do not remember being told that. 

My colleague is the person who stated that, but to the best of my 

memory then and to this day, I remember nothing with respect to 

any limitations on our ability to inform seniors—that would have 

been the National Security Advisor and the Deputy National Security Advisor in this case—due to the nature of the briefing. 

Senator COLLINS. That leads me to ask you why you did not report the information. I know you said in response to a question 

from Senator Lieberman that this was one of many items and that 

it was not that specific, that it was vague reporting, but it seems 

to me that any report that a foreign country was trying to influence 

elections in the United States would cause you to bring that information to the attention of either the Deputy National Security Advisor or the National Security Advisor. So I am trying to better understand why you decided not to. 

Mr. BEERS. Senator, if I thought that there was a program to try 

to influence the election that was known to be underway, I would 

have briefed my superiors. It was not clear to me from that briefing 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
10 

that this was not more than chatter with respect to an idea. But 

because they were unable to brief me on any specific targets or any 

more detail other than the notion that there was a notion that the 

Chinese might be thinking about doing something like this, I felt 

that it was in the nature of a preliminary briefing and I wanted 

to have more information before I briefed more senior people. 

Senator COLLINS. Did you follow up on the briefing to ask for additional briefings? 

Mr. BEERS. Yes, ma’am, I did ask for additional information at 

that briefing. By the time this issue became a media discussion, I 

had not had an opportunity for a second follow-up on my own behalf. My colleague did talk to them, or at least I understand that 

he did talk to the Bureau about any additional information, but I 

was not privy to any details that there was any more information 

at that point in time. 

Senator COLLINS. By your colleague, are you talking about the 

FBI detailee assigned to you? 

Mr. BEERS. That is correct. 

Senator COLLINS. So you did, at the conclusion of this briefing, 

ask your detailee to follow up and report back to you if there were 

subsequent developments? 

Mr. BEERS. I asked both my colleague and the Bureau briefers 

to do the same. 

Senator COLLINS. And there never was further reporting to you? 

Mr. BEERS. No. In fact, I never saw any further reporting on that 

subject. 

Senator COLLINS. So later that same year, the contributions by 

Chinese nationals to the presidential campaign, the Clinton-Gore 

campaign, became a major issue, in fact, had led this Committee 

to do a major investigation. At that time, did you then recall the 

briefing that you had had indicating that there may have been an 

attempt by the Chinese to influence congressional campaigns? 

Mr. BEERS. I did, and I spoke to the NSC Counsel at that point 

in time. 

Senator COLLINS. And was it at that point that Sandy Berger 

said to you, you should have brought this to our attention earlier? 

Mr. BEERS. That is the point at which Mr. Berger and the White 

House General Counsel sought more information on what we knew. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you. That is very helpful. 

Let me follow up with Senator Lieberman’s other question, and 

that is on the cyber security issue. I have a lot of reservations 

about the establishment of a White House cyber security czar because it makes it far more difficult for Members of Congress to exercise our oversight responsibilities. We traditionally cannot call 

presidential advisors before the Committee. But I am also concerned in terms of accountability. 

Just this past Friday, the President announced that he is creating the cyber czar, and then yesterday Secretary Napolitano appointed a number of individuals within the Department of Homeland Security with cyber security responsibilities. In your testimony, you stated that the Directorate’s overarching mission is to 

mitigate the risk to the Nation’s cyberspace by cyber criminals and 

nation-states. 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
11 

So you have the cyber czar within the White House. You have 

a Director of the National Cyber Security Center within DHS. You 

have the head of the National Cyber Security Division. You have 

the Assistant Secretary for Cyber Security and Communications. 

And you have your position. So my question to you, Mr. Beers, is 

who is in charge? 

Mr. BEERS. Senator Collins, thank you for that question. I think 

that it is an absolutely appropriate question. What Secretary 

Napolitano has sought to do in terms of aligning responsibilities 

within the Department is to create as close as possible, respecting 

the rules of the Senate about reorganizations of the Department of 

Homeland Security without recourse to congressional approval, a 

single chain of command that ends with the position of the Under 

Secretary for National Protection and Programs, which if you confirm me would be me. Working for me will be a respected cyber security individual, Philip Reitinger, who is already appointed the 

Deputy Under Secretary for NPPD, but is now also dual-hatted as 

the Director of the National Cyber Security Center. Under him 

would be the Assistant Secretary for Cyber Security and Communications, and under him would be the office within that assistant 

secretaryship which carries out the specific and detailed and operational functions within the Department. 

We believe that with respect to the individuals who are already 

in place or who are now named, we are assembling the strongest 

possible team that DHS could put together in order to give you and 

the country some assurance that DHS is here to do whatever it 

can, within the law, obviously, to protect America’s cyber infrastructure, and I would hope that you would confirm me to be a part 

of that team. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Senator Collins. 

If I may, with Senator Akaka’s permission, that was a really important question that Senator Collins asked you. I was going to ask 

it myself in a second round. To me, your answer was clear, which 

is that if you are confirmed, you will be in charge of the cyber security effort for the Department of Homeland Security. 

Mr. BEERS. Yes, sir. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Can I ask just one more quick question? 

On the so-called cyber czar in the White House, not yet named, do 

I understand correctly that the position will have no operational 

authority? 

Mr. BEERS. That is my understanding, as well, sir. That was the 

discussion that went through the review study, as I was able to ascertain, and it will be a coordinating function in the tradition of the 

National Security Council staff, or now the National Security staff 

based on the new reorganization. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Right. And what the new Cyber Security 

Coordinator will be coordinating is the work that you will be doing, 

that the NSA will be doing, that the Department of Defense will 

be doing. Have I left any big ones out? 

Mr. BEERS. Yes, sir, you have. The Department of the Treasury, 

the Department of Commerce—— 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Right. 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
12 

Mr. BEERS [continuing]. And the Department of Justice would be 

three other major participants in this, as well as the rest of the civilian side of the government. As you will recall, the National 

Cyber Security Center and the Department of Homeland Security 

Cyber Security and Communications Office are together working to 

provide a defensive system to protect the U.S. Government from 

cyber intrusions. That will require our working with all of those 

cabinet departments and agencies, and sometimes, I am sorry to 

say, we need help from the White House in order to get people to 

play in the same sandbox. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Understood. Thank you. 

Senator Akaka, thanks for being here. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am glad 

to be here and add my welcome to Mr. Beers and also welcome his 

family, wife, son, and brother to this hearing. 

Mr. Beers, looking over what you have consented to do, you have 

a tremendous position, a tremendous job, and tremendous challenges before you. As Under Secretary for National Protection and 

Programs, your charge will be to take proactive steps to protect our 

national infrastructure and resources, and that is a huge undertaking. I am pleased with your focus on resiliency in your approach 

to strengthening homeland security, as well as your interest in 

working with partners. That is another part of your position, to 

work with other parts of the government at all levels, as well as 

the private sector. So, in looking at all of this, my feeling is that 

you are going to be all over the place in homeland security, but I 

am hopeful that you will address the human capital and management challenges within NPPD so that the Directorate can meet its 

operational requirements. All in all, I feel that your job is hugely 

operational. 

In your response to the Committee’s policy questions, you stated 

that NPPD’s most significant challenge to accomplishing its mission is its ability to hire enough highly qualified employees to meet 

the rapidly growing demands on the Directorate. So my question to 

you is, what is your overall approach not only to recruiting these 

workers, but also to training and even retaining them? 

Mr. BEERS. Senator, thank you for that question. It is truly the 

first challenge, if I am confirmed, that I will face, and I have 

thought about it. I have been briefed about it. I have talked with 

my colleagues about it. Philip Reitinger has already begun some of 

the process that we need to put in place in order to bring people 

on board. 

We have no absence of people who apply for the positions. We 

have no absence of people who are fully qualified for the positions. 

We have a problem with the process for actually taking them on 

board, and that represents the challenge that he has begun and 

that I hope I might be permitted to continue. In particular, we 

have to look very carefully at all of the processes leading up to the 

job offer and the security clearance, and that means that the processes for posting the positions, reviewing the individuals who are 

considered qualified, and selecting those for hiring are done in an 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
13 

expeditious fashion, and they have not been always done as quickly 

as they might be, and Mr. Reitinger has taken that task on. 

We have discussed further what more might be done with respect 

to the security clearance process, not to make the clearance less serious or robust, but to determine whether or not we are putting 

ourselves in a bind with respect to the over-classification of some 

of the positions, that is, positions where it might be nice to have 

a ‘‘top secret’’ clearance, but the ‘‘top secret’’ information would only 

be necessary in very rare occasions, or whether or not for those individuals who have clearances from other agencies there might be 

a better arrangement in order to at least grant interim clearances 

while the full background was done by the Department of Homeland Security, if in fact that was even necessary. 

This was one of the things that the 9/11 Commission looked at 

in terms of the granting of clearances in the U.S. Government and 

the stovepipe system that currently exists, and it is certainly one 

that I want to examine with my colleagues if I am confirmed and 

one that I know the Office of the Director of National Intelligence 

is also interested in. So I think that there are opportunities to 

move from the current level of Federal employees to a higher level 

in a much shorter period of time than it has taken to get to the 

level that we are at at this particular point in time, and I regard 

that as a major challenge. 

Senator AKAKA. Well, I am glad to hear that you look upon that 

as an opportunity. This is one area where we have been lacking. 

Senator Voinovich and I, he is the champion, have been working 

hard on human capital over the years, and for good reason, and we 

are still working on it. So your work on human capital would certainly help, and I hope, as you said, you look upon it as an opportunity. 

I am pleased that you see the need to convert some contract work 

into career civil service positions to ensure that NPPD has the internal capacity to perform its core functions and that contractors 

are not performing inherently governmental work. In particular, 

your response to the Committee’s policy questions noted that contract employees are currently serving as NPPD’s Directors for Resource Administration and Human Capital. In my opinion, these 

seem to be inherently governmental functions. What is your 

timeline for converting these and other contract positions into civil 

service positions? 

Mr. BEERS. Sir, it is my intention to move as quickly as I possibly can to make those conversions, recognizing that it is not always a one-for-one replacement. But with respect to inherently governmental functions, I want to move as quickly as possible to put 

in place Federal employees, recognizing that the contracting function that the Department and NPPD has may not allow the termination of the contract without financial penalties. We will have to 

look at all of those considerations in how we move forward, but I 

do not believe that it has to be a restriction in terms of bringing 

on board the right people for the right positions as Federal employees. So as a general answer, we will move as quickly as possible 

to bring people in. How quickly we can terminate the contractors 

and replace them will depend on the contract itself and the financial obligations of the contract. 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
14 

Senator AKAKA. Well, thank you very much for your responses, 

Mr. Beers. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you, Senator Akaka. Senator 

Burris, welcome. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BURRIS 

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

Collins. 

I would like to welcome Mr. Beers before the Committee as we 

consider his nomination for Under Secretary for the Department of 

Homeland Security and the National Protection and Programs Directorate. Mr. Beers, from what I have read, you have a remarkable career in public service, and I was really impressed with that. 

I am glad to see you continuing to want to serve. Your background 

and demonstrated expertise in the field of national security will 

serve you well if you are confirmed. 

I heard Senator Akaka just ask a couple of questions that I was 

going to ask, so let me switch back further in my notes and see if 

we can get you to answer this question. 

You stated that although you believe the organization of the National Protection and Programs Directorate allows it to complete its 

mission, you would review its structure, if confirmed. Are there any 

specific aspects of the National Protection and Programs Directorate that you can identify at this point that will yield greater efficiencies? Would a review of the organizational structure be an immediate priority? 

Mr. BEERS. Sir, I have looked at the Directorate. We have actually focused on one of the major changes that I would make, which 

is not so much organizational, although it would result in a different culture, and that is, move from the 50 percent level of contract employees present in our offices and move in the direction of 

a much higher percentage of Federal employees as quickly as possible. 

With respect to organization and reorganization, the Department 

has put forward in the appropriation for fiscal year 2010 a major 

reorganization move which would move the Federal Protective 

Service from Immigration and Customs Enforcement to the National Protection and Programs Directorate. That would be a major 

reorganization, if approved. There are over 1,000 Federal law enforcement officers within the FPS, and they supervise over 15,000 

contract employees which have been part of the Federal system of 

protecting our Federal buildings, from cabinet agencies to courthouses, around the country. That would represent a major change 

in both the size and management challenges. The Directorate has 

already begun a series of discussions and seminars with the Federal Protective Service so that if Congress approves that change, 

we would be ready to move as seamlessly as possible to including 

them within the NPPD umbrella. 

Beyond that, I have some ideas that I have been tossing around 

in my mind, but sir, I have to say I have been around government 

long enough to know that, first, there is a whole lot of difference 

between observing an organization from the outside and observing 

an organization from the inside, and I am reluctant to go entirely 

on my preliminary visions about what I might be prepared to do. 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
15 

And second, sir, I want to be able to talk to the employees specifically about this. I do not want them to hear about my thinking 

about reorganization without an opportunity to talk to them. So beyond the FPS proposal, there are some ideas that I have, but I 

would prefer not to talk about them publicly until I—— 

Senator BURRIS. It sounds like to me, Mr. Beers, that you are 

going to do the reverse. It was always contracting services. Government is contracting everything out. It looks like to me you are saying that you will look at, when those contracts expire, hiring some 

of those people who have been working for the contractor and 

bringing them back into the government. Where else are you going 

to get the talent and experience to bring these people in? There 

would be a timetable involved if you were to use individuals who 

are not experienced and currently working with the contractor, 

would that not be so? 

Mr. BEERS. Sir, we have right now a hiring program for approximately 500 individuals. A number of those individuals would come 

on as chemical inspectors. A large other number would come to 

work in our National Cyber Security Division. We have had no 

dearth of applicants from the private sector, retired government officials, retired military and law enforcement officials, people who do 

come out of the contracting world—— 

Senator BURRIS. Well, now, if they are retired officials and they 

are on a pension, would they come back and have to deal with their 

pension arrangements with the Federal Government? 

Mr. BEERS. It depends on what system they were under, sir. If 

they were in the military, they would be permitted to receive a second government salary in addition to their pension. If they were 

with a law enforcement agency, some of them would be permitted 

to come back and have a second contract. If they were like me, and 

I am a pensioner, sir, no. You get just your government salary. 

Senator BURRIS. So are you telling me you are giving up your 

pension to come back? 

Mr. BEERS. Yes, I am giving up my pension, but the amount of 

money I would receive if I am confirmed will be larger than my 

pension—— 

Senator BURRIS. OK. 

Mr. BEERS [continuing]. Although my pension is a very generous 

pension for 36 years of government service. 

Senator BURRIS. I would imagine so. That is a great deal of service. Thank you very much, Mr. Beers. 

Mr. BEERS. Thank you, sir. 

Senator BURRIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Senator Burris. Senator Voinovich. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR VOINOVICH 

Senator VOINOVICH. First of all, Mr. Beers, I think that we are 

lucky to have someone like you with experience and background 

who is interested in continuing to serve our country. Thank you for 

your willingness to do that. 

Mr. BEERS. Thank you, sir. 

Senator VOINOVICH. When you are confirmed, you will oversee efforts to develop and implement a biometric entry and exit system, 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
16 

which Congress has been calling for since the PATRIOT Act was 

enacted back in 2001 and which the 9/11 Commission called an essential investment in national security. You have said that ‘‘implementing an effective air entrance and exit solution,’’ would be one 

of your top priorities, if confirmed, but I notice that you excluded 

the word ‘‘biometric’’ from your description. Will implementing a biometric air entry and exit system be a priority for you? 

Mr. BEERS. Yes, sir, and I regret that I neglected to use the word 

‘‘biometric.’’ It was certainly in my mind when I reviewed the answers to those questions and signed the statement. Yes, it will be 

biometric, sir. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Recently, I met with the head of another 

DHS component, and he told me that he believes implementing a 

biometric air entry and exit system would be cost prohibitive. Do 

you agree with that assessment, and why or why not? Maybe you 

have not been around long enough to be able to answer that, but 

this is a pretty high up person, and he said that it would be prohibitive. 

Mr. BEERS. Sir, if the solution selected involves using U.S. Government employees to implement such a system, we would have to 

come back to the Congress with a budget proposal that would allow 

us to undertake those responsibilities. We are currently looking at 

the pilot program. When we have the results from that pilot program and are ready to make a selection between an airline implementing solution or a government implementing solution, we will 

also do our homework to talk about what the cost would be, and 

we will come back to you with that. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Now, I think—— 

Mr. BEERS. Whether it is cost prohibitive or not, I am not in a 

position at this point in time to tell you because we have not actually run the numbers in a hard fashion for that particular option. 

Senator VOINOVICH. It is my understanding the airlines opted 

out of the biometric pilot being conducted now and that Customs 

and Border Protection is part of this testing and the other group 

that is doing it is the Transportation Security Administration 

(TSA). 

Mr. BEERS. That is correct, sir. The airlines declined to participate in the test program. We will factor that into the pilot results 

and make our judgments known and work with Congress to move 

forward. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Well, one of the things I would like to point 

out is that there is no money requested in the budget to actually 

begin implementing biometric air exit during fiscal year 2010. I understand there is more than $20 million in prior year funds that 

can be used for further biometric air exit work in 2010, but the 2- 

month-long air exit pilot projects that US-VISIT is conducting will 

cost more than $5 million. So $20 million will not go very far. I am 

concerned about the lack of significant funding for this system because the Department’s waiver authority to bring new countries in 

to the visa waiver program is linked to the creation of a biometric 

air exit system. Without funding, how would we move forward in 

fiscal year 2010 to meet congressional mandates to develop that biometric air exit system? 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
17 

The point I am getting at is that we have countries now that 

have come into the visa waiver program, a total of eight new ones. 

There are no other countries ready to come in right now, but there 

may be, I think, in 2010. But the statute provides that if the biometric air exit system is not in place, then the Secretary authority 

to waive visa refusal rates exceeding 3 percent stops. That is, you 

cannot bring in many more countries, so aspirant countries go into 

limbo. And my concern is that if we do go forward with biometric 

air exit, and you said you think it is a good idea, then I think there 

ought to be some money so that you can implement it and we do 

not end up, as I say, in limbo with our visa waiver program expansion, which is not only important to our national security, but also 

to public diplomacy for this country because there are a lot of countries out there right now that would like to get into the program 

and are hoping to get in, but without this system, they cannot be 

waived in. 

Mr. BEERS. Sir, you are absolutely right in that regard. It would 

appear to me, as well, that $20 million would not be enough to implement that kind of a program if it becomes a government program, and that is why I said what we need to do at the conclusion 

of the pilot test is come forward with, first of all, where we think 

the solution ought to go and, if it is a government program, with 

a way to pay for it because I am committed to it and want to work 

with you and other Members of Congress to implement that program because I believe it is important to the security of this country. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Well, I may call the Secretary because I am 

Ranking Member on that Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee and maybe we could stick some money in there so that 

if you do decide to go forward with it, you have some money to 

work with and we can move forward with it. 

In 2007, DHS released scorecards evaluating the interoperable 

communications capabilities with major cities. I took it upon myself 

to visit the four cities in Ohio where those scorecards were issued. 

I thought the scorecards were terrific because they showed that we 

only had one city that really was up to snuff in Ohio. The rest of 

them were not there. I would like to suggest to you that those 

scorecards were a great idea, and I would hope that you might revisit that program so that we could go out and do another evaluation of where cities are to see if they have made any improvements 

because interoperability is fundamental, I think, to any kind of response to either a natural disaster or a terrorist attack. 

Mr. BEERS. Sir, you and other Members of this Committee and 

the Congress have made that clear to us, and I totally agree with 

you that this is an absolutely vital program to protecting America, 

and I look forward to working together with you and other Members of this Committee to make that program a reality. So you 

have my commitment to that. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you. Well done. 

Let us do a second round of 5 minutes each, if Members have additional questions. 

Mr. Beers, let me focus on the Office of Infrastructure Protection 

that comes under the Directorate you have been nominated to 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
18 

head, which is now, as you said, tasked with coordinating a national program to reduce the risk to the Nation’s 18 critical infrastructure and key resources sectors. These sectors are wide-ranging 

and include areas such as energy, information technology, water, 

and financial—really the basis of the way we live in our country 

today. All of them are critical, but obviously we have limited resources and therefore prioritization is necessary. 

I would say up until this point that the transportation and chemical sectors have been a focus of the Department. Are there sectors 

that you believe have not yet received adequate focus and should 

now become added to the Department’s top priority list? 

Mr. BEERS. Sir, one of the major reasons that I took this job was 

the cyber function that was embedded in this job—— 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Yes. 

Mr. BEERS [continuing]. And in that particular sector and the 

cross-sector committee on cyber security, that would be one of my 

major efforts in the 18 critical sectors. The second would be the 

electrical sector. It is hard for cyber security to work without electricity. It is hard for the critical infrastructure, cyber infrastructure, to work without electricity. So I would want to make sure 

that we were as confident as we might be that those two sectors 

were receiving as much attention as needed. 

I do not want to in any way, however, diminish the importance 

of the other sectors—— 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Sure. 

Mr. BEERS [continuing]. But you asked for the principal ones 

that I would focus on at the start, and those are the two, sir. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Well, that is a helpful and encouraging 

answer. One related question is we know, of course, that today, 

electricity depends on cyber systems, as well. In 2007, the Department of Homeland Security, working with the Idaho National Laboratory, discovered a cyber vulnerability known as ‘‘Aurora,’’ which 

has the potential to do really long-term costly damage to mechanical equipment essential to the operations of the electric sector. The 

reality is that if vulnerabilities like Aurora are strategically compromised in a coordinated manner, large portions of the United 

States could be without electricity for a long period of time. 

Do you believe that current efforts to secure the electric sector 

from cyber attack are sufficient? If not, give us a general idea what 

your plan would be to try to improve them. 

Mr. BEERS. Sir, you are absolutely right in referring to that 

study in terms of the significant vulnerability. I do not believe we 

have adequately addressed that vulnerability or other vulnerabilities, and that is why I intend to look at the individual protections for these data systems that serve as the controls for the electrical grid and specifically at those generators that were deemed to 

be so vulnerable. I think we need to erect our cyber defenses not 

just in the U.S. Government, but ensure that the private sector is 

aware of the possibilities and takes advantage of those defenses insofar as they can bring them to bear on the vast amount of our critical infrastructure that is in the private sector. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Well, I appreciate that answer. I appreciate what you said earlier, that cyber defense is probably the No. 

1 reason why you have taken on this assignment. Part of the chalVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:17 Oct 29, 2010 Jkt 051780 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\51780.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT

ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
19 

lenge obviously is how do you and all those working with you in 

the Department of Homeland Security get the private sector, which 

owns and operates most of the critical infrastructure, to do what 

needs to be done to protect our homeland security, particularly if 

it costs money to do it at a difficult economic time. 

I will come back to this with you, Mr. Beers, but I hope as you 

go through these issues, if you are confirmed, at the beginning of 

your service in this position, if you feel that you need additional 

legislative authority to get the private sector to do what we need 

them to do in the national interest, I hope you will not hesitate to 

let this Committee know. 

Mr. BEERS. Thank you, sir. I will. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you. Senator Collins. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to follow up on an exchange you had with Senator 

Voinovich, who talked about the importance of interoperable communications. This has been a priority of the Chairman and mine 

for several years, and we made some progress, but not enough. 

Several years ago, the Integrated Wireless Network project was 

begun and the goal was to create a nationwide consolidated interoperable wireless communications system for the law enforcement 

officials at the Department of Homeland Security, the Department 

of Justice, and the Treasury Department. Despite spending hundreds of millions of dollars, a Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) report in December of last year found that the program had 

failed, and it had failed due to a lack of leadership within the participating agencies. In the Department of Homeland Security’s response to the GAO report, the reason given for abandoning the 

joint program was ‘‘because the Department of Justice and DHS 

have different regional priorities, a common system will not work 

at the national level.’’ Now, keep in mind this is after spending 

hundreds of millions of dollars to achieve this. 

What is your view of having an interoperable communications 

system for Federal law enforcement officers regardless of which 

agency they are employed by? 

Mr. BEERS. First of all, as a general proposition, Senator Collins, 

I am committed to that objective. I think that it just makes really 

good common sense. I understand that the Department has spent 

a large amount of money without success, although I am told that 

there was a successful test bid in the Pacific Northwest that 

seemed to be operating effectively. But you are right about the 

GAO report conclusion and the statement that the Department 

gave you in response to that GAO report. 

I am committed to looking into this. I understand that the concept of the Emergency Communications Preparedness Center is a 

hoped-for solution to this problem, but it is the kind of thing that 

I am going to have to dig into if I am confirmed and probably work 

further with you all in order to get the right answer. But I am committed to getting to yes in this general proposition. The notion that 

somehow we cannot find a common solution just because different 

departments and agencies have different ways of doing business is 

kind of the same thing that we are wrestling with US-VISIT, which 

is how do you merge the databases that different departments and 

agencies have in order to have the most effective common database. 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
20 

And I am not saying that it is easy, but it also seems to me that 

it is something that a little bit of elbow grease and attention might 

be able to resolve a little more easily than throwing up your hands. 

Senator COLLINS. I certainly agree with you. The Department’s 

response to the GAO report sounds like a turf battle to me rather 

than focusing on what the objectives should be. It is certainly ironic 

that the Department—correctly, in my view—has pushed State, regional, and local law enforcement to work together on interoperable 

systems and yet has thrown up its hands and apparently abandoned an attempt to have an interoperable system across the Federal Government. So I am pleased to hear your response, and we 

look forward to working with you on that. 

Let me switch to another issue, which is the chemical security 

law, which as an author of that law is of great interest to me. I 

read with interest that in 2006, you co-chaired a task force on 

homeland security established by the Century Foundation, which 

issued a report that had a chapter on chemical site security. Now, 

this was before we were successful in getting the law passed. But 

you have two recommendations that are not included in the current 

law. One was to provide liability protection and the other terrorism 

insurance premium reductions for chemical plants that are in compliance with the Federal chemical security regime. Do you still 

agree with those recommendations, or is it something you would 

still pursue? 

Mr. BEERS. It is something that I certainly want to look at in the 

context of the chemical legislation reauthorization, although, as 

you know, the Administration only asked to roll over the existing 

authorization in this fiscal year in order to give ourselves in the 

Executive Branch time to make sure that we had the right answer 

to that question. 

I would certainly like to look at that, if I am confirmed, as an 

element. As I said earlier, being on the inside and looking in from 

the outside are two different perspectives. I am not saying that my 

perspective will not change. I am not saying that it will change. 

But I certainly want to take the opportunity to look at this reauthorization and thank all of you on this Committee for that legislation. I care deeply about that, as indicated in that book and efforts 

that I undertook to look at this issue from the time that I left government, and so you all are to be commended for a terrific piece 

of legislation. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you. I appreciate that. This Committee 

has tried to identify gaps and emerging vulnerabilities and pass 

legislation to try to get ahead of the curve, and I will be looking 

forward to your recommendations. I am aware that the Department 

and the Administration has asked for a one-year extension of the 

sunset deadline, or the expiration of that law, and we look forward 

to working with you. 

Just one final question. In your responses to Senator Lieberman 

and in your responses to the pre-hearing questions, you indicated 

your willingness to respond to requests for information from this 

Committee. I would be remiss in my duties as the Ranking Minority Member if I did not ask that you treat requests from the Chairman and from the Ranking Member equally, even though I can assure you that 90 percent of the time, those will be joint requests 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
21 

and this Committee prides itself on its bipartisan approach to these 

issues. But would you respond to requests from the minority equally? 

Mr. BEERS. Without reservation. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you. 

Mr. BEERS. I have worked for Administrations in which the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch were not always led by 

the same party, and I have worked when they were the same 

party, and I have worked with both parties and served both parties. I look forward to working with the minority as well as the majority. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you, Senator Collins. 

I want to give you a special assignment, Mr. Beers, in your review of the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards Act. It is 

called CFATS, which has become pronounced in government circles 

as ‘‘see-fats.’’ We can do better than that, and I am counting on 

you. [Laughter.] 

Mr. BEERS. Thank you, sir. That is a challenge. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. I think they have a whole unit over at the 

Pentagon because in the Pentagon, this would be called Operation 

Sturdy Strong Cleanup or something. [Laughter.] 

Senator Burris. 

Senator BURRIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a general 

question. 

Mr. Beers, Homeland Security is a relatively new Department. It 

was a conglomeration of responsibilities coming from various other 

sources and agencies. If you are confirmed, do you think that you 

will have a pretty good working knowledge to pull all of those functions together and overcome all the turf battles? Do you see any 

turf battles that might be inhibiting you at this point to carry out 

NPPD’s major functions? 

Mr. BEERS. Sir, you are absolutely correct in your characterization of the Department, and the evolution of this bringing together 

of a number of different agencies from different departments was 

a challenge at the beginning and continues to be an ongoing issue. 

It is certainly one that Secretary Napolitano recognized when she 

took over the Department and one which she has listed as one of 

her five major priorities. 

There are some rivalries. There are some turf battles. I do not 

believe that any of them are insurmountable, but I also have to tell 

you in all candor, sir, I served much of my career in the Department of State, and to say that there are not turf battles in the Department of State among the offices in that Department would be 

to ignore over 100 years of history in that particular Department. 

So it is not always true that the passage of time resolves all challenges, but it is certainly one that the Secretary and I, if I am confirmed, will take on as an important issue, to make sure that she 

says we have one DHS and not 37 different entities within a Department. 

Senator BURRIS. Yes, because I see that you are going to take 

over, what is it, the FPC, or—— 

Mr. BEERS. FPS, sir. The Federal Protective Service. 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
22 

Senator BURRIS. Yes. So if you begin to try to move that away, 

I can just see that there might be some turf problems starting 

there if that were the case. 

Mr. BEERS. Sir, that is an interesting question because there has 

been a lot of discussion about where the Federal Protective Service 

would be best located, including some people who have said that 

perhaps it ought to go back to the General Services Administration 

from which it was plucked and put into the Department of Homeland Security. 

Senator BURRIS. I used to run a similar General Services for the 

State of Illinois—— 

Mr. BEERS. Yes, sir. 

Senator BURRIS [continuing]. And have had this experience of 

turf problems. 

Mr. BEERS. Yes, sir. When you think conceptually about what 

that law enforcement agency does, protecting Federal critical infrastructure, and the responsibility of the Infrastructure Protection 

Office in NPPD, there really is, I think, an alignment here of missions, and one of our sectors is the Federal, State, local, tribal, and 

territorial governmental infrastructure. So this actually, I think, 

represents a good conceptual fit. Now, if that happens, what NPPD 

will need to do is make sure that the transfer from Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement to NPPD is done as smoothly as possible 

so that the normal turbulence associated with any kind of a move 

of that magnitude does not come to be crippling to the roles and 

missions of the FPS or NPPD. 

Senator BURRIS. Mr. Beers, I want to congratulate you and look 

forward to you continuing your work with public service. I am just 

admiring your ability to come back and extend that talent and commitment that we need at such a crucial time. Congratulations to 

you. 

Mr. BEERS. Thank you, sir, for your kind words. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Well said, Senator Burris. 

Thanks, Mr. Beers, for your testimony today, for your willingness 

to serve. If confirmed, you are going to be in a truly critical position 

for our homeland security, and your entire career, fortunately for 

us, prepares you for it, so I thank you for your willingness to serve 

again. I thank your family for backing you up. We have almost a 

reflex reaction that is quite appropriate in the Armed Services 

Committee of thanking the nominees and their families. We probably do not do that enough in the other committees, so we thank 

the people behind you. 

Without objection, the record for this hearing will be kept open 

until 12 noon tomorrow for the submission of any written questions 

or statements for the record, and we hope very much to be able to 

move your nomination out of the Committee and through the Senate as soon as possible. 

Do you have anything else you would like to say in your defense 

before we execute judgment? [Laughter.] 

Mr. BEERS. No, sir. Thank you very much for the opportunity to 

appear before you and to answer your questions. It was a pleasure. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you. Senator Collins. 

Senator COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I just want the nominee to 

know that I have introduced a bill to allow the reemployment of 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
23 

annuitants without having their pensions offset in order to help us 

attract people back into government. However, in your case, the 

bill, I regret to tell you, would not apply because it is limited to 

part-time work over a limited period of time, and if all goes well, 

we hope that you will not be doing part-time work when you are 

at the Department. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BEERS. Thank you. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Senator Collins. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:55 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER

ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER
(25) 

A P P E N D I X 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.001
26 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.002
27 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.003
28 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.004
29 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.005
30 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.006
31 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.007
32 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.008
33 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.009
34 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.010
35 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.011
36 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.012
37 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.013
38 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.014
39 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.015
40 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.016
41 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.017
42 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.018
43 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.019
44 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.020
45 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.021
46 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.022
47 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.023
48 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.024
49 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.025
50 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.026
51 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.027
52 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.028
53 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.029
54 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.030
55 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.031
56 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.032
57 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.033
58 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.034
59 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.035
60 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.036
61 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.037
62 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.038
63 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.039
64 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.040
65 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.041
66 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.042
67 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.043
68 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.044
69 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.045
70 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.046
71 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.047
72 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.048
73 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.049
74 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.050
75 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.051
76 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.052
77 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.053
78 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.054
79 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.055
80 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.056
81 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.057
82 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.058
83 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.059
84 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.060
85 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.061
86 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.062
87 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.063
88 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.064
89 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.065
90 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.066
91 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.067
92 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.068
93 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.069
94 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.070
95 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.076
96 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.071
97 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.072
98 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.073
99 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.074
100 

Æ 


ph44585 on D330-44585-7600 with DISTILLER51780.075