Hearing Of The Senate Homeland Security Committee - To Consider The Nomination Of Rand Beers To Be Undersecretary Of Homeland Security For National Protection And Programs

Statement

Copyright ©2009 by Federal News Service, Inc., Ste. 500, 1000 Vermont Ave, Washington, DC 20005 USA. Federal News Service is a private firm not affiliated with the federal government. No portion of this transcript may be copied, sold or retransmitted without the written authority of Federal News Service, Inc. Copyright is not claimed as to any part of the original work prepared by a United States government officer or employee as a part of that person's official duties. For information on subscribing to the FNS Internet Service at www.fednews.com, please email Carina Nyberg at cnyberg@fednews.com or call 1-202-216-2706.

SEN. LIEBERMAN: Good afternoon, and thanks to all of you for coming to this hearing today on the nomination of Rand Beers to be the undersecretary for the National Protection and Programs Directorate, NPPD, at the Department of Homeland Security.

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 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 travelers screening and emergency communications. The president's FY2010 budget proposes to expand this directorate further by moving the Federal Protective Service Unit into it.

Let me just talk about a few of the areas that I hope and I know will be priorities if confirmed.

Cyber security is clearly one of those. The threat of cyber attacks is an urgent national security, homeland security challenge. As we know, last week President Obama announced the results of the 60- day review of cyber security policy and government structures. I am grateful for the president's focus on this issue and particularly reassured that, as the president sees it, the Department of Homeland Security has a central role to play in any government-wide cyber security strategy, and the NPPD is part of the department that will lead its efforts in that regard.

I'll 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 US-VISIT program, which requires foreign nationals to undergo biometric screening as they enter the country. The 9/11 commission concluded that three of the September 11th hijackers had overstayed their U.S. visas and concluded that requiring a biometric exit screening was vital to homeland security. In fact, if we had implemented a biometric system to detect overstays prior to 9/11, there is some reason to believe that we could have prevented the attacks of 9/11.

I am very concerned that almost eight years later, despite the clear need for a viable biometric exit system, we still do not have such a workable situation in place. The committee will continue to work with the Department of Homeland Security to insure 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 undersecretary to reauthorize and strengthen the Department's chemical facility anti-terrorism standards, the chemical security program.

So, bottom line, Rand Beers is a very experienced public servant. If confirmed, he will need all that experience to put to use as the director of the NPPD to protect our homeland security.

Senator Collins.

SEN. SUSAN COLLINS (R-ME): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I join the chairman in welcoming Rand Beers as the nominee today. As the chairman has indicated, the scope and importance of the NPPD's responsibilities are daunting. The directorate is charged with ensuring successful implementation of the Chemical Facilities 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 terrorist use of such explosives in the United States, and protecting the nation's cyber networks.

The chairman and I have focused a great deal on that last responsibility: cyber security. It is both critical and complex. The complexity arises not just from the technical nature of the issue but from the disjointed approach that the federal government has taken.

In the course of the coming months, cyber security responsibilities across the federal government will be the subject of much debate as we consider the administration's plan and alternative legislative proposals to strengthen our cyber security efforts.

DHS's relationships with the critical infrastructure sectors that both provide for and rely on information technology services will remain invaluable in ensuring a coordinated defense against cyber attacks. I look forward to hearing from Mr. Beers about how, if confirmed, his management of DHS's cyber security efforts will be affected by the White House's new cyber security initiative.

NPPD also manages programs that benefit components across the department, including, as the chairman has indicated, the US-VISIT 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.

SEN. LIEBERMAN: Thank you, Senator Collins. I'd like to welcome retired general, John Gordon of the U.S. Air Force, who is here to introduce our nominee. We're honored to have you take the time to be here for that purpose. And I would call on you at this time.

JOHN GORDON: Chairman Lieberman, Senator Collins, good afternoon. I'm a retired Air Force officer and a former deputy director of Central Intelligence, a former undersecretary of Energy, 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've 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 undersecretary of Homeland Security.

To cut to the chase, I know of no individual who's better qualified, nor anyone more suited to take on the vital task of protection of America's critical infrastructure, as you both have said is the central responsibility of this position. Nor, in my book, is anyone more suited to be a member of Secretary Napolitano's leadership team, and I offer my unqualified and total support for his confirmation.

Now, to be entirely transparent and with full disclosure, Rand is a close friend and a long-time professional colleague. We've worked together in the State Department and 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 write this first -- Rand is a patriot. He's committed his entire working life to the security of our nation, beginning as a Marine officer and rifle company commander in Vietnam where he served four 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 rewards in the service he gave to our nation.

He's the very model of an American committed to good government, willing to give his time, talent and energy toward that end. Rand Beers is a man of integrity. He can always be counted on to do the right thing, to give us objective and well-considered advice.

Rand has proven under fire -- and here 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 literally crises as he served in senior positions in peacekeeping, counterterrorism, counternarcotics, intelligence and Middle East policy.

Now, these items all help define the character of the man, but can he actually do the job? Yes, I'm certain he can. Rand is certainly among the most experienced, if not the most experienced candidate for a senior position in homeland security.

As mentioned already, he's had huge responsibilities in counterterrorism, counternarcotics, political and military affairs, peacekeeping and intelligence, continuously -- continuously since he joined the Foreign Service in 1971. As you mentioned, Chairman, he served four presidents in the National Security Council.

Most recently Rand has had the opportunity to, I think, 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, Harvard.

My sense is that this time of reflection, observation and teaching has given him a new and broader perspective of the national and homeland security, along with a renewed commitment to the urgent tasks ahead, as well as a deeper appreciation of the long-term strategic goals we must achieve.

If confirmed, we can expect Rand to immediately be effective, with no spin-up time needed. He co-led the transition team, as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, at the Department for the incoming administration, where he really looked into every aspect of the new and still-evolving department. And today he serves as counselor to Secretary Napolitano, advising her on the full breadth of the secretary's mission.

I suspect he's 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 issues.

Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned at the outset, I'm 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 and 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 undersecretary of homeland security. Thank you.

SEN. LIEBERMAN: Well, thanks very much General Gordon. We honor you as a former here, and the statement was a very strong one on Rand Beer's behalf, and thank you for your service.

We know that you're busy. If you'd like to stay, we'd be happy to have you. If you need to depart, we understand that and send you off with our thanks.

MR. GORDON: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. LIEBERMAN: Rand Beers has filed responses to a biographical and financial questionnaire, answered pre-hearing questions submitted by the committee, and has had hits 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, as I think you know, 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?

Thank you, and please be seated. We would be happy to hear an openings statement at this time and would welcome also, of course, introduction of any family or guests you have with you.

MR. BEERS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Senator Collins. Thank you for the opportunity for having me 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, but I also want to take this opportunity to introduce the members of my family, without whom I surely would not be here.

First, my wife, Bonnie Beers; my son, Nathanial Beers; and my brother, Chuck Appleby (sp), 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've spent about 26 years of my life working for the United States 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 on 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-9/11 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 and 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 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 and 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 undersecretary. Thank you very much, and I stand open to your questions.

SEN. LIEBERMAN: Thanks very much, Mr. Beers. I'm going to start my questioning with the standard three questions we ask of all nominees. First, is there anything you're aware of in your background that might present a conflict of interest with the duties of the office to which you've been nominated?

MR. BEERS: No, sir.

SEN. 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've been nominated?

MR. BEERS: No, sir.

SEN. LIEBERMAN: And, finally, do you agree, without reservation, to respond to any responsible summons to appear and testify before any duly constituted committee of Congress if you are confirmed?

MR. BEERS: I do, sir.

SEN. LIEBERMAN: Thank you. We're going to start with a round of questions of seven minutes each.

Mr. Beers, let me just sort of get some old business out of the way before we go 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 at 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 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 would -- 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 responsible for.

In the summer of 2006 I was briefed, along with my FBI assistant, by two FBI agents about a --

SEN. LIEBERMAN: You mean 1996, don't you?

MR. BEERS: '96, I'm sorry. Yes, sir.

SEN. LIEBERMAN: I do that all the time. (Laughter.)

MR. BEERS: (Laughs.) I was briefed by two FBI agents about a new activity that they were looking at concerning, as you mentioned, the possibility that the Chinese government was seeking, in some way, to influence Congressional elections.

The briefing itself was very preliminary, very sketchy, very limited in detail. The Bureau was unable to tell me if they had identified any individual members of Congress or any particular Congressional races that were being focused on. And the answer to that was that they were not. As a result of that, I determined that there was not a great deal of information available, but that it was something that I should continue to monitor, and asked that I continue to be informed about further developments in that process.

Later on that year there was a public controversy about Chinese efforts to influence the re-election 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.

SEN. LIEBERMAN: But, there was no reference to the presidential election in that briefing that you were --

MR. BEERS: None whatsoever. None whatsoever, sir.

And, as a result of that, Sandy Berger -- who was then the national security adviser, together with the White House general counsel launched and investigation to find out what was known, what was not known, how it had come to -- how it had come to pass. In the course of that particular briefing -- or investigation, I should say, 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 adviser, 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 a 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.

SEN. LIEBERMAN: Okay. I appreciate that very much.

So, as I hear it, in addition to nothing being mentioned about the presidential election, the reason you didn't 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.

SEN. LIEBERMAN: And that the level of the briefing was general, or vague?

MR. BEERS: Yes, sir.

SEN. LIEBERMAN: Okay.

Obviously, everybody has to make their own judgments, but certainly, for myself, that's no obstacle to supporting your nomination.

I'm heading to the end of my time, but let me just take us to cyber security. There was a lot of concern -- (laughs) certainly on this committee, and I hope more broadly, that the review and a 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 that did not happen, at least not in what I read.

And, of course, for me, the reason I -- it's not just turf, it's that this is a very critical element of homeland security, and it will continue to be for some time, to kind of protect us -- both our non- defense federal cyberspace and the private sector that DHS has the primary responsibility for.

Just give me -- and then I'll come back in a second round, just give me your reaction. Am I hearing it right, you were in inside -- am I reading it right, do you feel that the role of the director -- you would have, if confirmed in the department is being at least sustained, if not strengthened; and that you'll not be undercut by the coordinator that will take office -- cybersecurity 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.

SEN. LIEBERMAN: Yeah. That both -- on both counts, that --

MR. BEERS: On both counts -- that's 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.

SEN. LIEBERMAN: Very good. Thank you.

Senator Collins.

SEN. 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 Levin 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 adviser -- and the deputy national security adviser, in this case, due to the nature of the briefing.

SEN. COLLINS: That leads me to ask you why you didn't 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 adviser or the national security adviser. So, I'm trying to better understand why you decided not to.

MR. BEERS: Senator, if I thought that there was a program to try to influence the election that was known to be underway, I would have briefed my superiors. It was not clear to me, from that briefing, that this wasn't 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.

SEN. 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.

SEN. COLLINS: By "your colleague" are you talking about the FBI detailee assigned to --

MR. BEERS: That's correct.

SEN. COLLINS: So you did at the conclusion of this meeting -- this briefing -- ask your detailee to follow up on and report back to you if there was subsequent developments?

MR. BEERS: I asked both my colleague and the bureau briefers to do the same.

SEN. COLLINS: And there never was further reporting to you?

MR. BEERS: No until -- no. No, in fact, I never saw any further reporting on that subject.

SEN. 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 council at that point in time.

SEN. 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.

SEN. COLLINS: Thank you. That's very helpful.

Let me follow up with Senator Lieberman's other question and that is on the cybersecurity 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 advisers before the committee.

But I'm also concerned in terms of accountability. Just this past Friday, the president announced that he's creating the cyber czar; and then yesterday, Secretary Napolitano appointed a number of individuals within the Department of Homeland with cybersecurity responsibilities.

In your testimony, you've stated that the directorate's overarching mission is to mitigate the risk to the nation's cyberspace by cyber criminals and nation states. So you have the cyber czar within the White House; you have a director of 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's in charge?

MR. BEERS: Senator Collins, thank you for that question. I think that it's 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 -- to create a single chain of command that ends with the position of undersecretary for National Protection in Programs, which if you confirm me, would be me.

Working with me will be a respected cybersecurity individual, Philip Reitinger, who is already appointed the deputy undersecretary for NPPD, but is now also dual hated as the director of the National Cybersecurity Center.

Under him would be the assistant secretary for Cyber Security and Communications. And under him would be the office within that assistant secretary-ship, 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.

SEN. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. 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 the second round. And to me, your answer's clear, which is that if you're confirmed, you'll be in charge of the cybersecurity effort for the Department of Homeland Security.

MR. BEERS: Yes, sir.

SEN. LIEBERMAN: Can I ask just one more question: On the so- called cyber czar in the White House -- not yet named -- do I understand correctly that that position will have no operational authority?

MR. BEERS: That is my understanding as well, sir. That is the discussion that went through the study -- 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 reorganization.

SEN. LIEBERMAN: Right. And what that -- the new cybersecurity coordinator will be coordinating is the work that you will be doing, that NSA will be doing, that the Department of Defense will be doing? Have I left any of the big ones out?

MR. BEERS: Yes, sir. You have. The Department of Treasury, the Department of Commerce, 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'm sorry to say, that we need help from the White House in order to get people to play in the same sandbox.

SEN. LIEBERMAN: Understood. Thank you.

Senator Akaka, thanks for being here.

SEN. DANIEL AKAKA (D-HI): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Glad to be here and to add my welcome to Mr. Beers -- and also welcome to your family -- your wife, your son, your brother -- to this hearing.

Looking over what you've consented to do, you have a tremendous position, tremendous job, tremendous challenges. And just to think of you as being in charge of national protection and programs, your charge will be to take proactive steps to protect our national infrastructure and resources. And that's a huge undertaking. But I'm pleased that your focus is on resiliency in your approach to strengthening homeland security.

And as well as your interest in working with partners -- and that's another part of your position here -- to work with other parts of the government at all levels, as well as the private sector. So you -- looking at all of this, my feeling was you're going to be all over the place in Homeland Security.

But I'm hopeful that you will address the human capital and management challenges within NPPD so that the directorate can meet its operational requirements. So all in all, I felt that your job hugely operational.

In your response to the committee -- our policy questions -- you stated that NPPD, its most significant challenge to accomplish its mission, is in 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'm 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 onboard.

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 onboard. And that represents the challenges 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 people who are responsible for posting the positions, for reviewing the individuals who are considered qualified and selecting those for hiring are done in an expeditious fashion. And they haven't been always done as quickly as they might be. And Mr. Reitenger (sp) 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, 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 is 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's certainly one that I want to examine with my colleagues if I'm 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's taken to get to the level that we're at at this particular point in time. And I regard that as a major challenge.

SEN. AKAKA: Well, I'm glad to hear that you look upon that as an opportunity. But this is one area where we've been lacking. Senator Voinovich and I, and he's the champion, have been working hard on human capital over the years, and for good reason. And we're still working at it. So your work in it would certainly help, and I hope as you said you look upon it as an opportunity.

I'm pleased that you see the need to convert some contract work into career civil service positions to ensure that NPPD has 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 serving as NPPD's directors for resource administration and human capital, and 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's my intention to move as quickly as I possibly can to make those conversions, recognizing that it's 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'll have to look at all of those considerations in how we move forward. But I don't 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 upon the contract itself and the financial obligations of the contract.

SEN. AKAKA: Well, thank you very much for your responses. Mr. Chairman.

SEN. LIEBERMAN: Thank you, Senator Akaka. Senator Burris, welcome.

SEN. ROLAND BURRIS (D-IL): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member. I would like to welcome Mr. Beers before the committee, and as we consider his nomination for Under Secretary for the Department of Homeland Security and the National Protection Program Directorate. Mr. Beers, from what I've read you have a remarkable career in public service. I was really impressed with that. I'm glad to see you continue to want to serve. Your background demonstrates expertise in the field of national security; it 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 over here backward further in my notes and see if we can't get you to answer this one here. You stated that although you believe the Organization of the National Protection and Program Directorate allows it to complete its mission, you would review its structure if confirmed. Are there any specific aspects of National Protection and Program Directorate that you can identify at this point that would yield greater efficiencies? Would a review of the organizational structure be an immediate priority?

MR. BEERS: Sir, I have looked at the Directorate. We've 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 the 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 '10 a major reorganization move which would move the Federal Protective Service from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency 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 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 court houses around the country. And that would represent a major change in both the size in management challenges, the Directorate has already begun a series of discussions in seminars with the Federal Protective Service so that if Congress approves that change we would be ready to move as seamlessly as possible to include them within the NPPD umbrella.

Beyond that, I have some ideas that I've been tossing around in my mind, but, sir, I have to say, I have been around government long enough to know that firstly there's a whole lot of difference from observing an organization from the outside and observing an organization from the inside. And I am reluctant to go entirely on my preliminary visions about what I might be prepared to do.

And secondly, sir, I want to be able to talk to the employees specifically about this. I don't 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'd prefer not to talk about them publicly.

SEN. BURRIS: You sound like to me, Mr. Beers, like you're going to do the reverse. It was always contracting services. Government is contracting everything out. Look like to me you're saying that you will look at when those contracts expire either hiring some of those people who had been hired working for the contractor and bring them back in the government. Where else are you going to get the talent and experience to bring these people in and there would be a timetable involved if you were to use individuals who are not experienced and currently working with the contractor. Wouldn't that 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 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 --

SEN. BURRIS: But now if they are retired officials and they are on a pension, will they come back and have to deal with their pension arrangements with the federal government?

MR. BEERS: Depends upon 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.

SEN. BURRIS: So are you telling me you're giving up your pension to come back?

MR. BEERS: No, sir.

SEN. BURRIS: Oh.

MR. BEERS: Yes, I'm giving up my pension, but the amount of money I would receive if I am confirmed will be larger than my pension.

SEN. BURRIS: Okay.

MR. BEERS: Although my pension is a very, very generous pension for 36 years of government service.

SEN. BURRIS: I would imagine so. That's a great deal of service. Thank you very much.

MR. BEERS: Thank you, sir.

SEN. BURRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. LIEBERMAN: Thanks, Senator Burris. Senator Voinovich.

SEN. GEORGE VOINOVICH (R-OH): First of all, Mr. Beers, I think that we are lucky to have someone like you with experience and background that is interested in continuing to serve our country, and thank you for your willingness to do that.

SEN. BURRIS: Thank you.

SEN. VOINOVICH: When you are confirmed, you will oversee efforts to develop and implement a biometric entry and exit system which Congress has been calling for since the Patriot Act was enacted back in 2001 and which the 9/11 Commission call an "essential investment in national security." You have said that, quote, "implementing an effective air entrance and exit solution," end of quote, 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 for having 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 biometrics, sir.

SEN. 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 haven't been around long enough to be able to answer that, but this is a pretty high-up person, and they said that it would be prohibitive.

MR. BEERS: Sir, if the solutions 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 costs would be and we will come back to you with that. Whether it's cost prohibitive or not, I'm not in a position at this point in time to tell you because we haven't actually run the numbers in a hard fashion for that particular option.

SEN. VOINOVICH: It's my understanding the airlines are out and that the issue now is the border patrol, Customs Border Patrol is part of this testing, and the other group that's doing it is TSA.

MR. BEERS: That's 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.

SEN. VOINOVICH: One of the things I'd like to point out is that there's no money requested in the budget to actually begin implementing that role in the second half of Fiscal Year 2010. I understand there's more than $20 million in prior year funds that can be used for further biometric air exit work in 2010, but the two month long air exit pilot projects, U.S. is conducting will cost more than $5 million. So $20 million won't go very far, and my concern is that the lack of significant funding for this system, because the department's ability to admit new countries to the visa waiver program which is a program that I was the main sponsor of, 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 better system? The point I'm getting at is this, is that we have countries now that have come into the Visa waiver program, about seven new ones. There aren't any ready to come in right now, but there will be I think in 2010 according to the statute. But the statute provides that if the biometric system is not in place, then the whole program stops. That is, you can't bring in anymore countries, so it goes into limbo.

My concern is that if we do go forward with the program, and you said you think it's a good idea, then I think there ought to be some money so that you can implement it and we don't end up say in limbo with the Visa waiver program that's not only important to our national security but also in terms of public diplomacy for this country, because there's a lot of countries out there right now that would like to get into the program and are waiting to get in but without this system it's finished.

MR. BEERS: Sir, you're absolutely right in that regard. It would appear to me as well that $20 million wouldn't be enough to implement that kind of a program if it becomes a government program. And that's why I say, what we need to do at the conclusion of the test, 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.

SEN. VOINOVICH: Well, I may call the secretary because I am ranking member on that Homeland Security Appropriations Committee, and maybe we can stick some money in there so that if you do decide to go forward with it that you've got some money to work with and we can move with it.

The last question I have is this, is that 2007 DHS released scorecards evaluating the interoperable capabilities with major cities. I took it upon myself to visit the four cities in Ohio where those scorecards were issued. I thought they were terrific. We only had one city that really was up to snuff. The rest of them weren't there. And I would like to suggest to you that that's a great idea, and I would hope that you might revisit that so that we could go out and do another evaluation of where they are to see if they had made any improvements because we all know that interoperability is fundamental I think to any kind of response to either a hazard or 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.

SEN. VOINOVICH: Thank you.

SEN. LIEBERMAN: Thank you. Well done. Let's do a second round of five minutes each of members who have additional questions. Mr. Beers, let me focus on the Office of Infrastructure Protection that comes under the directorate that you've been nominated to head. Now as you said in your opening statement: Tasked with coordinating a national program to reduce the risk to the nation's 18 critical infrastructure and key resource sectors. These 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've got limited resources and therefore prioritization is necessary.

I would say up until this point that 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.

SEN. LIEBERMAN: Yeah.

MR. BEERS: 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's hard for cyber security to work without electricity. It's hard for the critical 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 don't want to in any way however diminish the importance of the other sectors.

SEN. LIEBERMAN: Sure.

MR. BEERS: You asked for a the principal ones that I would focus on at the start, and those are the two, sir.

SEN. LIEBERMAN: No, that's a helpful and encouraging answer. One related question, as we know and you know of course, 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 U.S. 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 of what your plan would be to try to improve them.

MR. BEERS: Sir, you're 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's why I intend to look at, A, the individual protections for the SKADA 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 in so far as they can bring them to bear on the vast amount of our critical infrastructure that is in the private sector.

SEN. LIEBERMAN: Well, I appreciate that answer. I appreciate what you said earlier, that this is probably the number one reason why you -- that is, cyber defense, why you've taken on this assignment.

But, part of the challenge, obviously, is how do you, and all those working with you in the Department of Homeland Security, get the private sector -- which owns and operates most of the information, 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.

So, we'll come back to this with you, Mr. Beers, but I hope, as you go through these -- 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.

SEN. LIEBERMAN: Thank you.

Senator Collins.

SEN. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to follow up on an exchange you had with Senator Voinovich, who talked about the importance of the interoperable communications. This has been a priority of the chairman and mine for several years, and we make some progress but not enough.

Several years ago the "Integrated Wireless Network" project was begun, and the goal was to create a nation-wide, 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 GAO report in December of last year found that the program had failed. And it had fail 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, quote, "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, regardless of which agency they're 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 bed in the Pacific Northwest that seemed to be operating effectively.

But, you're right about the GAO report and the 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 hope for a solution to this problem. But, it's the kind of thing that I'm 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 can't find a common solution just because different departments and agencies have different ways of doing business is -- well, it's kind of the same thing that we're wrestling with with US-VISIT, which is: How do you merge the databases that different departments and agencies have in order to have the most effective common database?

And I'm not saying that it's easy, but it also seems to me that it's something that a little bit of elbow grease and attention might be able to resolve a little more easily than throwing up your hands.

SEN. COLLINS: I certainly agree with you.

And the department's response to the GAO report sounds like a turf battle to me, rather than focusing on what the objective should be. It's 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'm 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, 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 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's 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 and the Executive Branch time to make sure that we had the right answer to that question. I'd certainly like to look at that, if I'm confirmed, as an element.

As I said earlier, being on the inside, and looking in from the outside, are two different perspectives. I'm not saying that my perspective won't change. I'm 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.

SEN. COLLINS: Thank you. I appreciate that. This committee has tried to identify gaps and emerging vulnerabilities, and passed legislation to try to get ahead of the curve. And I'll 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'd 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, 90 percent of the time those will be joint requests and this committee prides itself on its bipartisan approach to these issues.

But, would you respond to requests from the minority equally?

MR. BEERS: Without reservation. 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.

SEN. COLLINS: Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. LIEBERMAN: Thank you, Senator Collins.

I want to give you a special assignment, Mr. Beers, in your review of the Chemical Site Security Act. It's called the Chemical Facility Antiterrorism Standards Act, CFATS, which has become pronounced in government circles as "See Fats." We can do better than that -- (laughter) -- and I'm counting on you.

Okay, Senator Burris.

MR. BEERS: (Laughs.) Thank you, sir. That's a challenge.

SEN. LIEBERMAN: I think they have a whole unit over at the Pentagon that -- (laughter) -- because, in the Pentagon, this would be called, you know, "Operation Sturdy Strong Clean-up," or something.

(Laughter.)

SEN. BURRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have one -- kind of a general question.

Mr. Beers, Homeland Security is relatively new department, and it was a conglomeration of responsibilities coming from various other sources and agencies. If you're confirmed, do you think that you will have a pretty good working knowledge to pull all 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 this -- you know, NPPD's major functions?

MR. BEERS: Sir, you're 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's 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 don't 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 aren't turf battles in the Department of State among the offices in that department would be to ignore over a hundred years of history in that particular department.

So it isn't always true that the passage of time resolves all challenges, but it's certainly one that the secretary and I, if I'm confirmed, will take on as an important issue, to make sure that, as she says, we have one DHS and not 37 different entities within a department.

SEN. BURRIS: Yeah, because I see that you're going to take over the -- what is it, the FPC or what --

MR. BEERS: FPS, sir.

SEN. BURRIS: FPS.

MR. BEERS: Federal Protective Service.

SEN. BURRIS: Yeah, so if you could 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's 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.

If you think about --

SEN. BURRIS: I used to run a similar general services for the state of Illinois and --

MR. BEERS: Yes, sir.

SEN. BURRIS: -- and they've 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 the 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 that transfer from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency to NPPD is done as smoothly as possible so that the normal turbulence associated with any kind of a move of that magnitude don't come to be crippling to the roles and missions of FPS or NPPD.

SEN. BURRIS: Well, Mr. Beers, I want to congratulate you. I look forward to continuing your work with public service, and I'm 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.

SEN. LIEBERMAN: Well said, Senator Burris.

Thanks, Mr. Beers, for your testimony today, for your willingness to serve. If confirmed, you're 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, thank your family for backing you up.

We have almost a reflex reaction that's quite appropriate in the Armed Services Committee of thanking the nominees and their families. We probably don't 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 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'd like to say in your defense before we execute judgment?

(Laughter.)

MR. BEERS: Execute judgment? No, sir. Thank you very much for the opportunity --

SEN. LIEBERMAN: None at all?

MR. BEERS: -- to appear before you and to answer your questions. It was a pleasure.

SEN. LIEBERMAN: Thank you.

Senator Collins?

SEN. COLLINS: Mr. Chairman, I just want the nominee to know that I have introduced a bill to allow the reemployment of annuitants without having their pensions upset 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 won't be doing part-time work when you're at the department.

SEN. LIEBERMAN: Amen.

SEN. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. BEERS: Thank you.

SEN. LIEBERMAN: Thank you, Senator Collins. The hearing is adjourned.

Source