[Senate Hearing 113-441]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 113-441
NOMINATIONS OF L. REGINALD BROTHERS, JR., AND HON. FRANCIS X. TAYLOR
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
NOMINATIONS OF L. REGINALD BROTHERS, JR., NOMINEE FOR UNDER SECRETARY
FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, AND
HON. FRANCIS X. TAYLOR, NOMINEE FOR UNDER SECRETARY FOR INTELLIGENCE
AND ANALYSIS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
__________
MARCH 5, 2014
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
88-278 PDF WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
JON TESTER, Montana RAND PAUL, Kentucky
MARK BEGICH, Alaska MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire
HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota
John P. Kilvington, Acting Staff Director
Harlan C. Geer, Senior Professional Staff Member
Carly A. Covieo, Professional Staff Member
Deirdre G. Armstrong, Professional Staff Member
Keith B. Ashdown, Minority Staff Director
Christopher J. Barkley, Minority Deputy Staff Director
Andrew C. Dockham, Minority Chief Counsel
Daniel P. Lips, Minority Director of Homeland Security
William H.W. McKenna, Minority Investigative Counsel
Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk
Lauren M. Corcoran, Hearing Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statements:
Page
Senator Carper............................................... 1
Senator Coburn............................................... 3
Prepared statements:
Senator Carper............................................... 19
Senator Coburn............................................... 21
WITNESSES
Wednesday, March 5, 2014
L. Reginald Brothers, Jr., Nominee for Under Secretary for
Science and Technology, U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Testimony.................................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 24
Biographical and financial information....................... 29
Letter from the Office of Government Ethics.................. 49
Responses to pre-hearing questions........................... 51
Responses to post-hearing questions.......................... 75
Letters of Support........................................... 80
Hon. Francis X. Taylor, Nominee for Under Secretary for
Intelligence and Analysis, U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Testimony.................................................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 83
Biographical and financial information....................... 87
Responses to pre-hearing questions........................... 104
Responses to post-hearing questions.......................... 127
Letters of Support........................................... 131
NOMINATIONS OF L. REGINALD BROTHERS, JR., AND HON. FRANCIS X. TAYLOR
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 5, 2014
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in
room 342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Thomas R.
Carper, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Carper and Coburn.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN CARPER
Chairman Carper. Good morning. Our hearing will come to
order.
Dr. Coburn will join us momentarily, but today we meet to
consider the two nominations for important positions at the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)--Dr. Reggie Brothers to
serve as Under Secretary for the Science and Technology
Directorate (S&T) and retired Brigadier General Frank Taylor to
serve as Under Secretary of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A).
I am pleased to see that President Obama continues to put
forth well-qualified nominees to fill the leadership vacancies
in critical components such as each of these.
The work done by the men and women at the Science and
Technology Directorate cuts across all of the components and
missions of this Department. They are responsible for
harnessing cutting-edge technology, and research and
development (R&D) projects that help Department personnel and
their partners be more effective in carrying out their missions
and responsibilities.
Dr. Brothers comes to us from the Department of Defense
(DOD), where he serves as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Research. In that position, he is responsible for policy
and oversight of the Department of Defense science and
technology programs, ranging from basic research through the
development of advanced technologies. He is also responsible
for long-term strategy for the Department's science and
technology programs.
In addition to his work at the Department of Defense, Dr.
Brothers also has significant experience in the private sector
working in laboratories. He clearly has a breadth of hands-on
technical expertise that he will bring to the Department of
Homeland Security.
In this budget environment, we need to make important
decisions on how to spend limited funds and are forced to do
more with less. However, we still have to stay ahead of the
evolving threats from both man-made and natural sources. I look
forward to hearing from Dr. Brothers today as he seeks to do
that. His background in managing science and technology
projects at DOD make him a great fit for this important role.
And I hope that we can move your nomination quickly.
General Taylor's nomination has been referred to the Senate
Select Committee on Intelligence. However, this Committee is
afforded the option of holding hearings on that nomination, and
we are doing that today.
The Department of Homeland Security's Office of
Intelligence and Analysis, serves as the hub for homeland
security intelligence. I&A was born out of a clear information-
sharing need exposed after September 11, 2001. The office
connects the U.S. Intelligence Community with the private
sector, with our State and local partners, and DHS's various
components.
Over the years, I&A has endured its fair share of criticism
for its analytical output, for its mission within the U.S.
Intelligence Community (IC) and for its role in helping our
Nation's fusion centers do a better job sharing information.
Compounding matters, the office has been without a Senate-
confirmed leader for the past 15 months. That is simply too
long for such a critical position.
Make no mistake, however, the interim leader of late,
Principal Deputy Under Secretary John Cohen, has done an
exemplary job addressing the challenges that I&A faces, and we
thank him for his stewardship.
However, in order to take the next step in its maturation,
I&A needs the leadership that only a Senate-confirmed Under
Secretary can provide. The Senate can do something about that
right now, and that is by quickly confirming General Taylor.
Like Dr. Brothers, General Taylor comes well equipped to
handle the task before him. His 35-year career in the Federal
Government includes key positions in counterintelligence, law
enforcement and counterterrorism. Moreover, for the past 9
years, General Taylor has worked to enhance the security of one
of the largest, and I think best, companies in the world; that
is General Electric (GE).
I am confident that General Taylor is the right person for
the job, and I will push for a speedy confirmation. General
Taylor, should you be confirmed, we look forward to working
with you to improve this office and the vital information
sharing over the coming months and years.
And, with that having been said, again, we welcome you, and
I am going to turn it over to Dr. Coburn, who I believe has
already been part of a hearing with you, General Taylor, in his
role on the Intelligence Committee. Dr. Coburn.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COBURN
Senator Coburn. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having
this hearing.
I want to thank both of our nominees for their willingness
to serve. They both come as very qualified individuals.
I have a prepared statement for the record that I would
like to be placed.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Senator Coburn appears in the
Appendix on page 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Carper. Without objection.
Senator Coburn. And I would note that both areas these
gentlemen are going to fulfill leadership roles in fit very
well with what Secretary Jeh Johnson has planned for getting
the Department of Homeland Security to where it needs to be.
And, again, I would thank you for your willingness to
serve.
We have lots of problems, both in S&T and I&A, both of
them. The difficulty in S&T is you are given the responsibility
but no authority to control the budgets over the areas which
you are going to have which means leadership skills are going
to be tremendously important and how you coordinate that and
nurse that to a position where we are coordinated.
Senator Levin and I put out a 2-year study on fusion
centers showing that even though we spent $1.4 billion there is
not one piece of actionable intelligence that has ever come up
that could be used nationwide out of that investment. And we
have had discussions about how to utilize that and what the
goals for that are, and it is not eliminating fusion centers,
but it is redirecting what they can best do in terms of all
hazards.
So I do not have any questions specifically. I will have a
few in writing for our nominees. I have had great visits with
both of them a couple of times.
And I am thankful to our President for these nominations,
and I am thankful for the leadership of Jeh Johnson in wanting
these to happen. And it is my hope we can get them moved, as
well as Suzanne Spaulding, as well as the IG, as well as the
rest of the ones that have passed our Committee.
Chairman Carper. Dr. Coburn, thanks and thanks very much
for all that you are doing to try to get these folks confirmed
and before the Senate and up and down for a vote.
Let me make a couple of brief introductions. This could be
a fairly short hearing. You never know. That would be a good
thing for your nominations, actually.
Dr. Brothers has filed responses to his biographical and
financial questionnaires. He has answered prehearing questions
submitted by the Committee and had his financial statements
reviewed by the Office of Government Ethics. Without objection,
this information will be made part of the hearing record, with
the exception of financial data which are on file and available
for public inspection in the Committee offices.
General Taylor's nomination has been referred to the Select
Committee on Intelligence, as we have said. However, this
Committee is afforded the option of holding hearings on the
nomination, and we are here seeking to do that today.
General Taylor has provided biographical information and
the answers to prehearing questions to the Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence, and the Intelligence Committee has
shared that information with us in preparation for this hearing
today.
Our Committee rules require that all witnesses at
nomination hearings give their testimony under oath.
And, with that, I am going to ask Dr. Brothers and General
Taylor, would you both please stand and raise your right hand?
Do you swear that the testimony you will give before this
Committee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but
the truth; so help you, God?
Mr. Brothers. I do.
General Taylor. I do.
Chairman Carper. You may be seated.
Let me just briefly introduce our nominees before asking
them to proceed with their statements.
Our first nominee, Dr. Reggie Brothers, the President has
nominated to be Department of Homeland Security's Under
Secretary of Science and Technology. Dr. Brothers currently
serves as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research at
the Department of Defense. He has extensive background in the
private sector at BAE Systems, the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency (DARPA), the Charles Draper Laboratory and the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Lincoln Laboratory.
Welcome. Pleased to have met with you and pleased to have
you be with us today.
Our second nominee is retired General Frank Taylor, the
President's nominee for the Department of Homeland Security's
Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis. As a career Air
Force officer, General Taylor served his country for 31 years
as a counterintelligence and law enforcement officer.
In 2001, he went to work for Secretary of State Colin
Powell as the State Department's counterterrorism coordinator,
a position with the rank of Ambassador. After a year and a
half, he was appointed to lead the State Department's Bureau of
Diplomatic Security as Assistant Secretary of State for
Diplomatic Security.
In 2004, General Taylor left the public sector to become
the Vice President and Chief Security Officer for General
Electric, where he handled top security issues like espionage
and insider threats.
Again, we thank both of you for your willingness to serve
in these important positions.
Dr. Brothers, if you will, please proceed with your
statement. Feel free to introduce any members of your family
who are with you today.
I heard that you might be bringing Jasmine's classmates
from--what is she? Seven years old?
Mr. Brothers. Seven years old.
Chairman Carper. Yes, I heard she might be bringing some of
her classmates here today. So feel free to introduce as many of
them as you want.
TESTIMONY OF L. REGINALD BROTHERS, JR.,\1\ NOMINEE FOR UNDER
SECRETARY FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Brothers. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, Dr. Coburn
and distinguished Members of the Committee. It is a great honor
for me to appear before you today as President Obama's nominee
for the position of Under Secretary for the Science and
Technology Directorate of the Department of Homeland Security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Brothers appears in the Appendix
on page 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am also honored to appear before this Committee, which
for the past 12 years has provided sound and distinguished
leadership for the Department that is the foundation of our
domestic security. If confirmed, I look forward to making my
contribution to the security of our Nation in these times of
accelerating technological advancements and diverse threats.
Senators, I would like to introduce my family now--first,
my wife Cynthia, who is the kindest and most compassionate of
all people I have known. Her love is my security. My daughter,
Jasmine, who is only 7 years old, continues to teach me
profound lessons and greater love every day. I marvel as I
watch her grow in intelligence, confidence, kindness, and inner
and outer strength. As I think you know, she wants to be a
scientist and a doctor. My dad, Lou Brothers, is not just my
father but my best friend. At 96 years of age, he continues to
provide a powerful example of the type of man, I strive to be.
His life has been based on service to his family, his community
and his country. He has taught me the values of integrity and
perseverance from his daily example. My mother, who is here
with us in spirit today, passed away 4 years ago. She is my
example of love of family and friends that I continuously
strive to emulate. I also thank my cousin, Debbie, who flew
here from Chicago this morning, for her love and never ending
support. I would also like to acknowledge my extended family,
my friends who you see behind me, because I believe that
friendship is essential to the soul.
I was asked recently why I am interested in taking on this
challenge. My desire comes from my personal understanding of
the impact of terrorist attacks. I am from Boston and have many
friends who live and work in New York City. On September 11,
2001, one of these friends was seriously injured as she ran
headlong into a cement street pole as she fled the area called
Ground Zero.
In 1996, I ran the Boston Marathon. In 2013, I watched
scenes of devastation in familiar areas around the Boston
Public Library. What if someone I loved had been injured or
killed that day? These sorts of tragedies have ignited my
passion to serve the mission and the vision of the Department
of Homeland Security, to ensure a safer and a more secure
America.
While my technical expertise and training is in the areas
of sensor systems, communications and cybersecurity, a
different type of attribute I can bring to the position of
Under Secretary is the perspective I have garnered from a
diverse career spent working across the science and technology
enterprise, and you mentioned academia, industry, public
service.
In my current role as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Research at the Department of Defense, I have purview over
a broad portfolio, approximately $12 billion in investment.
And, Dr. Coburn, you mentioned leadership. I think when
being considered for such an important role it is important to
discuss not just technical competence but leadership style as
well. From a leadership perspective, I believe it is essential
to focus on fostering relationships among all stakeholders,
asking the right questions and truly listening.
If confirmed, I will emphasize collaboration, open
communication, horizontally and vertically across the
Directorate. I believe it is essential that everyone feels
heard, valued, and empowered.
Now I would like to pivot from leadership to another
priority for the Homeland Security enterprise, and that is
technology transition to operational components. The process of
developing critical technical end-user capabilities involves a
wide variety of professionals, including academics, scientists,
technologists, tactical operators, senior leaders in
acquisition, and legal professionals.
I am fortunate to have worked closely with professionals
from all of these communities, and I have learned and
appreciate each of their nuanced languages. I believe this
multilingual capability is essential for a most efficient and
effective technology transition.
Going forward, I would like to continue the good work and
leadership of my predecessors: Dr. Charles McQueary, Rear
Admiral Jay Cohen, and Dr. Tara O'Toole. I will continue to
foster a culture in which decisions are informed by rigorous
analysis, focused on adding value to the operational
components, and managing investments in the most efficient and
effective manner.
I am deeply humbled, and I am honored to appear before you
today in consideration of serving as the Under Secretary for
the Science and Technology Directorate. I look forward to
working with the leadership and Members of this Committee to
serve the interests of the United States and its people.
Thank you.
Chairman Carper. Dr. Brothers, thanks very much for your
testimony.
And I just want to say to your wife, to your daughter, to
your dad and all those folks that are gathered behind you in
your family and your extended family, just a warm welcome and
particularly--here they come.
Jasmine, this looks like your classmates from your class.
Is that right?
Mr. Brothers. This is the second grade class from Pinnacle
Academy. It is a science and mathematics school in Oakton,
Virginia.
Chairman Carper. That is great.
Well, Jasmine, just to make sure, we do not tolerate
disruptions. [Laughter.]
But we are happy that you are here, and we are happy that
your classmates and teachers are here as well.
Welcome one and all, especially to your dad. It is just a
great honor to have you in our presence. Welcome.
Mr. Brothers. Thank you.
Chairman Carper. General Taylor, I do not know how you are
going to top that. [Laughter.]
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE FRANCIS X. TAYLOR,\1\ NOMINEE FOR
UNDER SECRETARY FOR INTELLIGENCE AND ANALYSIS, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF HOMELAND SECURITY
General Taylor. I am not going to try, Senator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of General Taylor appears in the
Appendix on page 83.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Carper, Dr. Coburn, Members of the Committee, I am
honored and extraordinarily humbled to appear before you today
as the President's nominee for the Under Secretary for
Intelligence and Analysis at the Department of Homeland
Security.
Before I begin, I would first like to recognize my family.
Without their support and encourage, I would not be here before
you today. And, while they are not able to join me here for
today's hearing, I am sure that they are watching. I am
grateful for the core values they have instilled in me and for
the life lessons they have taught me. For me, there is no
stronger symbol for the importance of accepting challenges like
this and the importance of making sure that we are getting it
right.
During my last period of government service, I was
privileged to work with Governor Tom Ridge and his team as they
endeavored to establish the Department of Homeland Security in
2003. DHS has come a long way, and its mission and
responsibilities have continued to evolve from those early
days. This position and the team I would be privileged to lead,
if confirmed, constitute crucial links between both the Federal
Government and the Intelligence Community, and our State,
local, tribal, territorial, and private sector partners, who
are on the front lines every day, protecting our country and
the citizens from an ever-evolving threat. As we learned in the
aftermath of 9/11, securing our Nation requires an effective
and intentional collaboration at every level. As envisioned by
Congress, I&A's role is to enable effective information sharing
among the Federal Government, its State and local, tribal, and
private sector partners, ensuring all involved have a clearer
understanding of the nature of the threats that we face
collectively.
I remain haunted by the fact that at least one of the 9/11
hijackers was engaged by local law enforcement before the
attack and the fact that there was certainly a potential for
action against that individual before the attack. This is the
type of coordination that must take place if we are to be
successful, and if confirmed, I will work to strengthen and
improve the processes and partnerships necessary to identify
and mitigate potential threats to our country and our citizens.
If confirmed, I intend to bring my 43 years of law
enforcement, security, intelligence, and crisis management
experience to bear in further refining and advancing the
efforts of my talented and dedicated predecessors. I have had
the distinct honor to serve our country as a U.S. Ambassador,
leading and directing diplomatic counterterrorism and
diplomatic security operations. I have also had the privilege
to work as the Chief Security Officer for the General Electric
Company, a Fortune 10 global U.S. conglomerate. In each of
these challenging but distinctly different roles, I have
assumed responsibility for mission execution and success, and I
believe my record indicates consistently successful results. I
have also had the experience of working both line and staff
roles, developing and implementing policy, creating and
managing budgets at every level, and leading operational
activity to mitigate risk to our country as well as to an
American economic giant, and I understand the interdependency
of the two.
While the I&A mission is different from any organization I
have led before, I will have to endeavor to learn the
organization, its unique customer requirements, and its
strengths and shortcomings. Following a week of intensive
briefings and meetings, I am pleased to share that my initial
assessment is very positive. I believe the organization is
grounded upon a solid foundation, and I hope to continue to
build on that foundation, particularly regarding the further
strengthening of DHS's bond to the National Network of Fusion
Centers, enhancing I&A's analytical contribution to the
Intelligence Community, of information derived from the
Department, State and local sources, as well as working to
eliminate duplicative efforts among I&A, other DHS components,
and our IC partners.
What makes I&A unique in the Intelligence Community is its
mission to link the U.S. Intelligence Community with first
responders across our country. The network of State and local
fusion centers provides I&A with a critical beachhead from
which it delivers information and analytical resources to our
Nation's 1,800 police entities. Caryn Wagner, as well as the
current I&A leadership team, began that process with aggressive
deployment of I&A personnel to fusion centers in the
development of a program of analysis that will guide the future
production of our analytical products. If confirmed, I will
work relentlessly to execute these plans, ensuring all
stakeholders understand that the critical importance of
supporting our State, local, tribal and public sector partners.
No organization can live on its reputation or hide behind
its mission statement. Organizations must evolve to improve to
meet the changing environments in which they operate. Mission
assessment, the development of clear objectives and the
implementation of rigorous metrics will help I&A stay focused
on both the present and the future. While my initial briefings
on I&A were impressive, they now constitute the baseline from
which I will use, if confirmed, to set future expectations and
measure effectiveness and accomplishment.
To better serve the Department and the Intelligence
Community, the Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis
must also embrace the role of Chief Intelligence Officer and
work with DHS components to synergize intelligence activities
across the Department. I am impressed with the potential of
what DHS calls the Homeland Security Intelligence Enterprise,
and I believe it is the right approach to implement
intelligence integration across the Department. If confirmed, I
intend to work aggressively with the DHS intelligence
components to further develop that model, and I look forward to
working with Congress to identify other ways to further build
the DHS intelligence enterprise.
Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would like to enter
the rest of the statement into the record.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of General Taylor appears in the
Appendix on page 83.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Carper. Without objection.
All right, gentlemen, thank you for statements.
We need to start off our questioning today with me asking
three questions. These are questions we ask of all nominees.
And you may remain seated when I ask these questions and as you
answer them, if you will just please answer after each
question.
No. 1, is there anything you are aware of in your
background that may present a conflict of interest with the
duties of the office to which you have nominated?
Dr. Brothers.
Mr. Brothers. No.
General Taylor.
General Taylor. No, sir.
Chairman Carper. All right. Do you know of anything
personal or otherwise that would, in any way, prevent you from
fully and honorably discharging the responsibilities of the
offices to which you have been nominated?
Dr. Brothers.
Mr. Brothers. No, sir.
Chairman Carper. General Taylor.
General Taylor. No, sir.
Chairman Carper. All right. 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. Brothers. Yes, sir.
General Taylor. Yes, sir.
Chairman Carper. All right. Thanks very much.
I would like to start with you, a question for you, General
Taylor. We talked a little bit about this when you visited with
my staff and me last month in my office.
Dr. Coburn, as he said, has spent about 2 years drilling
down on the fusion centers--a concept which, on paper, makes a
whole lot of sense but, in its actual execution and
implementation, has been less than satisfying.
And there is, I think, still considerable potential to be
realized, but it has not been realized. His work and that of
his staff and Senator Levin made that, I think, fairly clear.
I do not know if you have had a chance to read the work
that they have created and the study that they have done, their
findings and recommendations. But, whether you have or not, I
would like for you to just talk about the concept of fusion
centers, where they make sense, where they do not, what has
gone wrong in terms of our fully recognizing or realizing their
potential in this country.
General Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Dr. Coburn, and I have had several discussions about
that very issue.
First, let me say that I think fusion centers are critical
in terms of bringing the 18,000 police agencies around this
country into the counterterrorism fight, and it is through the
fusion centers that we can do that.
I think the challenge is, what are the metrics of success
in the fusion center, both in translating IC information to the
fusion centers and bringing information from the fusion centers
back to the Intelligence Community?
And so I have read the report from Dr. Coburn and Senator
Levin. I understand what the concerns are.
If confirmed, my intention is to look very carefully and
closely at what the fusion centers are expected to do, to set
expectations for how that mission should be performed, and then
measure as best I can the execution of that mission to ensure
that they are meeting their potential.
Chairman Carper. You worked for two of the people, two of
the leaders, that I most admire in this country--Colin Powell
and Jeff Immelt, one a military leader, the leader of our State
Department and just a great American, and the other a
remarkably successful and effective leader on a highly
respected, multinational company, GE.
What were the qualities that they saw in you that led them
to hire you for these positions of extraordinary
responsibility, and how does your execution of those duties
suggest that you are well qualified for this position?
General Taylor. Sir, it is my belief in both cases I was
hired based upon my demonstrated track record of forming, in
the counterintelligence world and the Air Force, those skills
that could be translated to the State Department and the
counterterrorism role in the State Department and, ultimately,
as the security leader for the State Department.
And, the same with GE, GE was looking for a leader that had
both international and U.S. experience in leading complex
security operations. GE did not have a chief security officer
at the time I was hired. I was hired to build a capability.
And my track record in terms of building capability and
mission execution, I believe, was a very important ingredient
in why both Mr. Immelt and General Powell hired me.
Chairman Carper. Dr. Brothers, a question for you if I
could.
Again, Dr. Coburn has focused on the issue of duplication.
There is a fair amount of it in government. If you do not
believe it, just ask him. And he has spent a huge amount of
time with his staff in finding it and pointing it out.
I want us to ponder for a moment, R&D duplication. I think
in a 2012 report the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
released a report that took a fairly broad look at research and
development across at DHS. And, while the report did not find
instances of duplication, it cited the potential for
duplication and waste due to coordination challenges within the
Department.
How would you view the role of the Directorate in
coordinating research and development investments across DHS?
That is the first part of my question.
And the second part would be, how would you ensure that the
highest priorities are funded, with desired results, delivered
to prevent potential duplication?
Mr. Brothers. Thank you.
Sir, I think the role of the Department is to have very
strong communication links horizontally and vertically across
the Homeland Security enterprise.
So I think it is important that we understand what the
needs of the operational components are as opposed to
necessarily what some of the wants might be. It is really what
the needs are, and that requires a great deal of communication.
It is also important that we understand the art of the
possible with respect to technology and science, that we do a
good job of the technology foraging so that we can have the
most efficient and effective use of our investment dollars, and
we also look toward the future to see where some of the science
and technology can lead us to.
I am sorry. What was the second part of your question, sir?
Chairman Carper. The second part of my question is, how
would you ensure that the highest priorities are funded, with
desired results delivered, to prevent potential duplication?
Mr. Brothers. One of the things I would look for is
developing what some people call frameworks.
Chairman Carper. Developing what?
Mr. Brothers. What some people call a framework, right?
So a framework could be where you start thinking about what
the threats are in terms of probability or time horizon and
then look at what the impacts might be.
Then by looking at that type of framework, you can start to
think about, how would you invest and what kind of timeframes
would you invest in? So that is one way of thinking about
investments.
In terms of making sure there is elimination of potential
duplication, that is where this communication becomes
important.
Sir, right now, in the Department of Defense, we have
something called the S&T Executive Committee. And in this
committee we meet with the leaders of the services and the
components, and we talk about our investment portfolios, and we
try to ensure that we do not have those kinds of duplications.
Those are the kinds of things I have seen to be effective.
Chairman Carper. All right. Before I yield to Dr. Coburn,
let me just ask the students that just walked in the hearing
room that are Jasmine's classmates, would you all like to stand
up? Why don't you just stand up?
Just stand up and remain standing, if you would, and let me
just say welcome to all of you.
I am sitting here with Senator Tom Coburn, who is my
colleague and a Republican from Oklahoma. And my name is Tom
Carper. I am a Senator, a Democrat, from the State of Delaware.
The two of us together lead one of the Senate committees. It is
called the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.
Our job as United States Senators is to work with 98 other
Senators and 435 Representatives in the House of
Representatives, along with the President and the Vice
President, to make the rules for our country. That is what we
do.
We make the rules for our country. They are called laws.
And our job is to help people.
And a big part of our job in this Committee is to make sure
that we help protect the people of this country from harm from
others in our country and outside of our country, who would
wish us ill.
And what we are working on today is trying to figure out if
these two men nominated by the President might be a big help in
leading our country to a safer place.
So that is what we are doing, and we are just glad you
could be a part of it.
Please have a seat. Thank you. Dr. Coburn.
Senator Coburn. Well, I said I was not going to ask
questions, but I cannot help myself.
This Committee is known as T.C.-squared--Tom Carper and Tom
Coburn.
General Taylor, the testimony that we had on the Boston
bombings from the police chief of Boston, he was asked
specifically, did the fusion center, the Commonwealth fusion
center, provide information or actionable intelligence to
anyone after the bombing that was not provided through other
channels, and if so, what was it?
His answer was they did not.
And you specifically talked about counterterrorism, but as
you know, fusion centers are an all-hazard event.
So my question for you is, rather than spending precious
dollars in fusion centers on information going down, wouldn't
it be better to better utilize the Joint Terrorism Task Force
(JTTF) for counterterrorism with a nod to the fusion center on
the information and use the fusion centers to try to build
information to JTTF and the other significant parts of the IC
community?
General Taylor. Sir, thank you for that question.
I think fusion centers sit at an apex that can serve both
the IC with information going back up but also can serve to
send information back out to the police agencies around the
country.
I do not think it competes with the JTTF. I think it
complements the JTTF. The issue is, how do we get the
information into the fusion center that will complement the
JTTF?
And I intend, if confirmed, to work on that nexus with the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to make sure that we are
not duplicating efforts but complementing the work of the JTTF
and its law enforcement/investigative role from the
intelligence collection and analysis role that we perform for
I&A.
Senator Coburn. I think that is important.
The fact is the history has never shown one piece of
actionable intelligence yet, in this country, from a fusion
center, and we have pretty well shown that.
That is not that we do not want it.
General Taylor. Yes, sir.
Senator Coburn. It is the fact that we have not been
effective in developing that.
And I am glad you are going to be in your position.
Dr. Brothers, you are going to be responsible for this
research except in two areas in Homeland Security that you do
not have control over. So how are you going to handle that?
Mr. Brothers. Let me make sure I understand your question.
You said two areas of Homeland Security that I do not have
control over?
Senator Coburn. Well, for example, the nuclear portion.
Mr. Brothers. Ah.
Senator Coburn. And I cannot recall the second one, but
there are two areas where you do not have line authority.
So your talents of persuasion and ordering of priority are
going to have to be highly effective if we are going to
actually coordinate all the R&D and science and technology
within Homeland Security. How do you do that?
Mr. Brothers. I absolutely agree with you. I think it
really does have to do with influence and persuasion and
relationships.
Senator Coburn. Should we reorganize and put it all into
one?
Mr. Brothers. I think, philosophically, I can understand
why there is a lot of thought of consolidation and putting it
all into one.
I think in a lot of examples that works; in some examples,
the actual implementation of that kind of consolidation can
become difficult. So it is something that I think is very
important to think about.
I spoke to the Secretary about this, and I think he is very
interested in thinking about how the implementation details.
Senator Coburn. All right. Thank you.
The rest of my questions I will submit for the record.
Chairman Carper. Last evening I met with a friend of yours,
the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Director
John Brennan, and we talked about a lot of issues I know that
he briefs the Intelligence Committee on fairly regularly.
Near the end of our discussion, we touched on the issue of
cybersecurity, and we talked about our efforts to try to
enhance the skills of the folks that are at DHS, to better
enable them and our country to deal with cyber attacks that are
occurring 24-7, around the clock.
This would be a question for Dr. Brothers. With an eye
toward trying to protect us from these ongoing cyber attacks,
how would you prioritize research and development in
cybersecurity, and the work of the Science and Technology
Directorate, in order to better protect us and our critical
infrastructure and other parts of our Nation against the
threats that we face today and maybe down the road?
Mr. Brothers. Sure, I can answer that from my perspective
of where I sit right now, at the Department of Defense, and how
we are working through that. And I think, if confirmed, these
are the kinds of things I would like to think about.
What we are thinking about is looking at the key
stakeholders--for example, in cyber, Department of Justice,
Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, and how
those three organizations overlap in terms of mission sets.
When we start thinking about given those mission sets, how
do we think to gaps in terms of our capabilities?
And then we try to have S&T that is focused at those
particular gaps.
This gets back to Dr. Coburn's comment about persuasion,
influence and all that--it requires a tremendous amount of
communication across the borders and boundaries of these
organizations in order to effectively do this.
Chairman Carper. All right. Have you had a chance to get to
know Dr. Tara O'Toole at all?
Mr. Brothers. Yes, I have met with her.
Chairman Carper. And your understanding from talking to
others about her work and the team that she led there--and let
me just say I was very impressed with her and thought she did a
good job.
But, when you think about her legacy and what was
accomplished during the time that she provided leadership,
where do you think they did a really good job, and what are
some of the areas that need maybe some of your earliest
attention?
Mr. Brothers. Sure. I think what was a very good job was
focusing on transition. I think a key point of science and
technology, particularly in the Department of Homeland
Security, is return on investment. Right?
It is getting value. It is really exploiting the fact that
science and technology is a force multiplier to our operators.
And I think Dr. O'Toole did a good job with that.
I think I would consider looking at other phases of the
research continuum.
So we may consider not just on what can be very quickly
transitioned, but how do we think about things that may take a
little bit longer, understanding this higher risk? Right?
Understanding this higher risk and evaluating how much we
want to put in a risky investment versus less risky
investments.
Chairman Carper. All right. Let me turn back to you,
General Taylor, if I could.
We mentioned your work on behalf of General Electric. For
how many years? Was it 8 years?
General Taylor. Eight and a half.
Chairman Carper. Eight and a half years.
But I think you were the head of security for what is one
of the most successful companies in the world, and you
obviously have some valuable insights in the security needs of
the private sector.
I&A serves many customers, as you know, including the
private sector.
And let me just ask two questions, if I may.
What Department of Homeland Security information would have
been most valuable to you as head of security for General
Electric? That is question No. 1.
And, given your interactions with I&A while at General
Electric, how can I&A improve its service to the private
sector?
General Taylor. Thank you, Senator.
First, in my view, the most valuable information out of
Homeland Security for the General Electric Company was on
cybersecurity, and a lot of the other security information we
were able to glean from local police departments and those
sorts of things in the communities where our factories are,
especially in the United States.
But the cybersecurity information, I think, was most
valuable and certainly an area where I&A, in working with
National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD), needs to
continue to ramp up our capability to get that kind of
information out. I think it is the biggest gap in the private
sector, and that is understanding the nature of the threat.
A company the size of GE has resources and can reach in
lots of places, but 85 percent of the companies in this country
are not that size and do not have those kinds of resources. So
I think that is an area where we can assist in informing the
business community of the threats and risks in cyber space.
DHS and the Federal Bureau of Investigations have worked, I
think, quite hard to try to put together what they call the
Domestic Security Advisory Council (DSAC). It is not as mature
as I think it needs to be. I think the Overseas Security
Advisory Council at the State Department is the gold standard.
So my intent would be to work with my colleagues at the FBI to
improve the efficiency and effectiveness of DSAC in responding
to the information needs from the government and private sector
security entities.
Chairman Carper. OK. I think once a year, maybe once every
other year, there is a non-profit entity which studies morale
of Federal employees across many of our agencies, and they
issue a report, and they literally rank and rate morale across
agencies.
And I think look at as many as 300 agencies, all total.
Some of them are fairly small. Others are, obviously, much
larger.
But the Department of Homeland Security, no secret, has
struggled with morale problems for a variety of reasons. One is
they are spread out all over the place and there is not a real
sense of team unity. All these different agencies were kind of
jammed together in what we hoped was a logical way, but they
have no real campus and no headquarters, and they are, in many
ways, far-flung and not a tight unit or team.
There are some exceptions, though, within the Department of
Homeland Security, and some of the components in the Department
of Homeland Security actually rank very high in terms of
employee morale. We have taken a look at that in trying to
figure out why that is.
Talk to us about the morale in I&A. We are told it is not
very good.
I spent a few years of my life in the Navy, and we thought
a lot about morale and tried to enhance it.
We should do the same thing here. Our Committee, if
anybody, has jurisdiction over Federal employees at large, and
that includes morale. So we are concerned about it.
You have, obviously, worked a lot on morale, enhancing it
for years, in uniform and out of uniform. Talk to us about how
you might bring those skills to enhance the job satisfaction of
the folks that you will be leading.
General Taylor. Sir, I appreciate the question.
I have read the reports of morale across the departments,
specifically morale within I&A. I think I&A has been buffeted
by many expectations about what is mission accomplishment and
how are they performing. They are hearing from many different
voices--good, bad and ugly--about the organization and what it
is accomplishing.
I think morale stems from people really understanding what
their mission is, leaders that really focus on objectives and
metrics to drive a mission accomplishment, and people who
really understand that leaders care for them, care about what
they do, care about how they do it and get them the resources
that they need to get their job done.
So my focus on morale is making sure everyone in I&A
understands what the mission is, not what they think the
mission is, but what the mission is, what we expect each of
them to do to contribute to that mission and then what the
results are going to be going forward.
And I would expect every leader in I&A to be focused in the
same way that I would be focused, in confirmed, to drive that
message to our employees--that they are important, that they
are getting things done and that we appreciate the work that
they are doing.
Chairman Carper. Before I turn to Dr. Coburn, Dr. Brothers
just a real quick word from you on morale. My sense is the
morale over at the R&D unit you will lead is a little better,
but just talk to us about your focus on morale. How do you plan
to keep it up and make it better?
Mr. Brothers. I think morale is extraordinarily important.
I think that in order to get the most effective use of the
team, morale has to be high.
I have looked at some of the data coming out of some of
those surveys you were talking about, and while it shows
challenges, what I would look to do, if confirmed, is
understand really the root causes--the whys. Perform a real
root cause analysis to understand why this is.
When I have an understanding what the why is, then the next
step is do something about it. And I think that really has to
do with the communication piece I mentioned earlier, making
sure, as General Taylor did, that folks understand what the
vision is, the strategy is, but not only that, making sure that
everyone is involved in the process. So it is not just a top-
down kind of development, but there is also input from every
level of the organization.
Chairman Carper. Dr. Coburn.
Dr. Coburn. My experience in both the business and the
medical communities is creating proper expectations and the
pats on the back when people accomplish that, and that is what
has been lacking at Homeland Security across a broad swath of
it.
We have valuable employees there, but their accomplishments
have not always been recognized. The expectations have not been
created. People want to perform, but they also want to be
recognized when they have performed.
And so having the clear objectives of what the mission is,
is a key component in all areas of Homeland Security, not just
these two, and that is what has been lacking.
So leadership, which both of you represent, and very
quality experience in those areas are exactly what Jeh
Johnson--why he wants you there because he is that kind of
leader.
And so my hope is that you can instill that leadership that
is necessary to make people proud of what they have done and
give them a clear pat on the back when they have accomplished
what was expected of them and creating goals that are
achievable but still hard, causing people to grow. People want
to grow.
So I think you both get it. I am pleased that you are here,
pleased that you are going to be confirmed. Our job is to make
it happen quickly.
Chairman Carper. I will say, in wrapping up, the elements
that I find most important in my life with respect to enhancing
people's satisfaction with their work is the feeling that what
they are doing is important and to believe that they are making
progress.
One of the keys to making progress is having strong
leadership.
Show me an organization. I do not care what organization it
is. It could be a school. It could be a church. It could be a
business. It could be an athletic team. It could be a
governmental unit. Show me one of those elements or one of
those entities that has strong leadership, and I will show you
a successful organization or one that is on its way to being
successful.
As Dr. Coburn has suggested, critical to the morale of the
employees of these agencies that we hope you will be leading is
strong leadership--Senate-confirmed leadership. It is the job
of the President and his folks to recognize, identify, vet, and
send to us names of well-qualified people.
As Dr. Coburn suggests, it is our job to drill down on your
qualifications and who you are and what you bring to the table,
and if we deem you well-qualified, to expeditiously hold this
hearing and, hopefully, report our your nominations to the full
Senate. Things tend to slow down there.
Dr. Coburn has been a great partner with me, in working
with Democratic and Republican leadership in the Senate, to try
to move through nominations that the Secretary and the
President have asked for.
We have too many senior positions in this Department that
do not have Senate-confirmed leadership, and that is not to
take anything away from the people who have served in Acting
capacities, but it is just much harder to serve and to lead in
that capacity.
So I want to, again, on behalf of all of us, those that are
here, those that are not here today at our hearing--it is
actually a pretty good sign when there are not many Senators at
a confirmation hearing. It is not bad news.
But we are pleased that you are here and that you have
prepared for, really, your whole lives, for these
responsibilities and that you are willing to take them on.
I just want to say to your families that are here and those
family members that are not, to your dad, to your wife, to your
daughter, to all those kids from her class, to the friends and
family that General Taylor has brought with them; thanks for
your willingness to share with us two very good men.
That having been said, the hearing record will remain open
until just noon tomorrow. So for Members who have some
questions they want to ask, they have until noon tomorrow to do
that.
Dr. Coburn, I know, has some additional questions. I am
sure others on our Committee do, too.
As soon as you have an opportunity to give us your
thoughtful responses the sooner that will enable us to try to
move your nominations out of committee and onto the floor.
Dr. Coburn, anything else?
Dr. Coburn. No, thank you.
Chairman Carper. Again, our thanks to you.
And, with that, this hearing is adjourned.
Thanks so much.
[Whereupon, at 10:21 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]