[Senate Hearing 114-473]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 114-473
THE NOMINATION OF SUSAN FAYE BEARD TO BE INSPECTOR GENERAL AT THE
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 12, 2016
__________
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://fdsys.gov
_________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
22-126 WASHINGTON : 2017
____________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing 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 20402-001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho RON WYDEN, Oregon
MIKE LEE, Utah BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
STEVE DAINES, Montana AL FRANKEN, Minnesota
BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia
CORY GARDNER, Colorado MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia
Colin Hayes, Staff Director
Patrick J. McCormick III, Chief Counsel
Kellie Donnelly, Deputy Chief Counsel
Angela Becker-Dippmann, Democratic Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, Chairman, and a U.S. Senator from Alaska... 1
Cantwell, Hon. Maria, Ranking Member, and a U.S. Senator from
Washington..................................................... 2
WITNESSES
Beard, Susan Faye, nominated to be Inspector General at the
Department of Energy........................................... 4
ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED
Beard, Susan Faye:
Opening Statement............................................ 4
Written Testimony............................................ 6
Response for the Hearing Record to Question from Senator
Wyden...................................................... 24
Responses to Questions for the Record........................ 30
Cantwell, Hon. Maria:
Opening Statement............................................ 2
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa:
Opening Statement............................................ 1
THE NOMINATION OF SUSAN FAYE BEARD TO BE INSPECTOR GENERAL AT THE
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 12, 2016
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m. in
Room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Lisa
Murkowski, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR FROM
ALASKA
The Chairman. Good morning, everyone. The Committee will
come to order so that we can consider the nomination of Ms.
Susan Beard to be the Inspector General (IG) of the Department
of Energy.
This is an important position at a large agency, and by
looking back at its origin we can understand what Congress
intended with its creation.
In 1977 with energy in crisis and of note, the very year
that this Committee was reconstituted with express jurisdiction
over the nation's energy policy, Congress established both the
Department of Energy (DOE) and the Office of the Inspector
General (OIG) within it. The Department of Energy Organization
Act requires the President to appoint an Inspector General to
lead the OIG. I quote, ``Solely on the basis of integrity and
demonstrated ability and without regard to political
affiliation.'' Notably the DOE's IG was one of the first in the
government, preceding the IGs established by the Inspector
General Act of 1978.
Given the significance of the Department's mission, the DOE
Act specifically requires the IG as one of a few primary
responsibilities to, and again I quote, to ``Keep the Secretary
and the Congress fully and currently informed concerning fraud
and other serious abuses, problems and deficiencies relating to
the administration of programs and operations administered or
financed by the Department, to recommend corrective action
concerning problems, abuses and deficiencies and to report on
progress.''
The only way that an Inspector General can discharge these
important responsibilities is to be fully qualified and to
maintain his or her independence from the rest of the Energy
Department. Indeed, the DOE Act expressly provides that ``The
IG shall report to the Secretary, but shall not be under the
control of or subject to supervision by any other officer of
the Department except in the case of an express delegation by
the Secretary or the Deputy Secretary.''
Ever since Gregory Friedman retired last fall--after
serving as Inspector General for 17 years and as a professional
in that office for another 16 years before being promoted to
IG--the office has been under the direction of an Acting IG.
As a starting point, I think we can all agree that DOE
needs a permanent Inspector General. However, I think we can
also agree that given the importance of this position, we have
to be sure we have the right person before we confirm anyone to
it.
So make no mistake, this is a big job. The Washington Post,
when it reported on Mr. Friedman's retirement last year, noted
the many politically sensitive cases he has investigated. These
include the controversial case of a scientist named Wen Ho Lee
who was wrongly charged with stealing secrets about the U.S.
nuclear arsenal; the Solyndra scandal that left taxpayers on
the hook for $535 million in loan guarantees; and the arrest of
three activists who penetrated the Energy Department's nuclear
weapons production facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Those are
just a few of the reasons why I am committed to ensuring that
the individual we confirm is fully independent with good
judgment in difficult situations.
The candidate must also have a firm grasp of the
responsibilities of an Inspector General, responsibilities not
only to the Secretary but to the Congress as well. The law
requires an IG to meet his or her independent obligations to
Congress, and while we expect the IG to approach the work with
civility, the independence of the Office of Inspector General
must never be compromised.
Ms. Beard has been an attorney within the Energy
Department's Office of General Counsel for the past 27 years,
clearly an admirable career. But after almost three decades
with DOE it may be difficult to transition from defending the
agency's interest as an attorney to scrutinizing the
Department's actions as the Inspector General.
I am interested this morning to learn how the nominee
intends to ensure the independence of the Office of Inspector
General as it audits and investigates all operations of DOE
including those areas that have been under her jurisdiction as
Senior Agency Lawyer.
I am also keen to learn more about the nominee's
experience, qualifications and intended approach for the
serious responsibilities that come with this position. Because
confirmation would be tantamount to a lifetime appointment, the
bar for an IG nominee is especially high.
We are here today to ask questions and raise attention to
whether Ms. Beard is the right fit for this permanent position,
and I look forward to this morning's discussions.
With that, Senator Cantwell, good morning.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Madam Chairman, for scheduling
this hearing, and Ms. Beard, for your willingness to serve in
this capacity as Inspector General for the Department of
Energy.
The role of Inspector General, as my colleague has said, is
a very important role in any agency, but an Inspector General
charged with the task of this particular agency, detection of
fraud and abuse in its programs and operations, is key.
The responsibility is especially great because it is, with
its $30 billion budget, responsible for maintaining and
safeguarding our nuclear arsenal, preserving our nuclear
secrets, cleaning up some of the most hazardous contaminated
places on earth and conducting cutting edge research,
development and distant edges of science and understanding. The
job calls for someone with both integrity and demonstrated
ability who is familiar with the Department's many programs but
can still maintain independence from the agency. The Inspector
General must be able to identify the Department's failings,
recommend corrective actions and ensure that progress is being
made to correct the problems. This is something I will touch on
in my questions.
This is especially important to me and the State of
Washington because we have a long history of leaking nuclear
waste tanks, missed clean-up deadlines and workers being
exposed to toxic vapors at Hanford. The former Inspector
General has well documented many of these in past reports, but
I will be looking for assurances that we will be able to hold
the Department accountable and ensure that it meets its cleanup
responsibilities and protects its workers. As you probably know
we have a tri-party agreement, the State of Washington with
DOE, on meeting these deadlines.
I believe Ms. Beard has good credentials. She knows the
Department. She has spent 27 years as the attorney in the
General Counsel's Office of the Department of Energy and the
Department's designated ethics officer. She has been
responsible for administrating the Ethics in the Government Act
with the Department and guarding against conflicts of interest.
She has demonstrated good integrity and legal capabilities
within that job.
I will also be looking forward to questioning about what
vigilant watch dog role you can play in holding this very, very
important agency accountable.
Thank you very much for your willingness to serve.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cantwell.
Ms. Beard, the rules of the Committee--which apply to all
nominees--require that they be sworn in, in connection with
their testimony, so I ask that you please rise and raise your
right hand.
Do you solemnly affirm that the testimony you are about to
give to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Ms. Beard. I do.
The Chairman. You can go ahead and be seated.
Before you begin your statement I will ask you three
questions addressed to each nominee before this Committee.
Will you be available to appear before this Committee and
other Congressional committees to represent departmental
positions and respond to issues of concern to the Congress?
Ms. Beard. Yes, I will.
The Chairman. Are you aware of any personal holdings,
investments or interests that could constitute a conflict or
create an appearance of such of conflict should you be
confirmed and assume the office to which you have been
nominated by the President?
Ms. Beard. My investments, personal holdings and other
interests have been reviewed both by myself and appropriate
ethics counselors within the Federal Government. I have taken
appropriate action to avoid any conflicts of interest, and
there are no conflicts of interests or appearances thereof to
my knowledge.
The Chairman. Are you involved or do you have any assets
held in blind trust?
Ms. Beard. No, I do not.
The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Beard.
You may now proceed with your opening comments and then
members of the Committee will have an opportunity to present
their questions.
Thank you and go ahead.
STATEMENT OF SUSAN FAYE BEARD, NOMINEE TO BE INSPECTOR GENERAL
AT THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Ms. Beard. Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell,
distinguished members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today. It is a great
privilege.
I'm honored to have been nominated by the President and to
be considered by this Committee for confirmation as the
Inspector General for the Department of Energy.
I would like to start by thanking, from the very bottom of
my heart, my husband, Charles Klingman and our children, Adina
and Jacob. Charles has been extraordinarily supportive of me
throughout our 27 years of marriage. Without his unending
support I would not be able to be here today and would not have
had the meaningful and rewarding career I've had as a career
member of the Senior Executive Service while raising two
wonderful children. Our marriage has truly been a team effort
which I greatly appreciate, especially in light of the fact
that our youngest child has significant developmental
disabilities.
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank my
sister, Karen Yaghoubian. Even though Karen is only five years
older than me, she really helped raised me. Our mother was
diagnosed with breast cancer when I was three years old and
passed away when I was 14. Without Karen's support, I would not
have been able to attend college and law school. I would simply
not be the person I am today.
I was born in Chicago and my family moved to Los Angeles
when I was young. I received my BA from Pomona College and my
law degree from UCLA. While in law school I spent a summer as a
law clerk for a law firm in Anchorage. It was a wonderful
experience and exposed me to the warm people of Alaska and its
breathtaking surroundings.
After graduating from law school I worked for a short time
in private practice for a law firm in Los Angeles. I then moved
to Washington, DC to become a staff attorney with the Federal
Election Commission, a position I held until I came to the
Department of Energy in 1989. I also taught legal research and
writing in a part time capacity at American University's Law
School.
I strongly believe in the importance and value of public
service. I have been a career employee, Federal employee, for
almost 29 years and a member of the Senior Executive Service
for more than 13 years. I've been in an attorney position for
all of my Federal career. In 2008 I was honored to receive a
Senior Executive Service meritorious rank award from President
George W. Bush.
I have managed the Department of Energy's ethics program as
the designated agency ethics official or the alternate
designated agency ethics official for almost 20 years. For the
last 13 years I have served the Department as the Assistant
General Counsel for General Law. In this capacity I not only
manage the ethics program but also provide legal advice on a
wide range of matters that impact all of the department's
Federal workforce and, to a much lesser extent, the
Department's contractors. The legal areas under my purview
include Federal personnel law, information law, and
appropriations law. I also manage the largest team of attorneys
within the Department's Office of General Counsel.
Over the years I've had the pleasure of working with the
Office of Inspector General. The majority of this work dealt
with allegations of statutory or regulatory ethics violations
by current or former Federal employees. I've also worked on
Federal personnel law issues, appropriations law and Freedom of
Information Act matters with the Office of Inspector General.
I believe strongly in the role of the Office of Inspector
General as an independent office within the Department of
Energy. If I'm fortunate enough to be confirmed to this
position, I commit to you that I will uphold the standard of
excellence and independence.
In my role as the Department's designated agency ethics
official I am responsible for advising the Department's most
senior leaders to ensure compliance with the ethics
requirements. I have never refrained from providing honest and
unbiased legal advice. If I am confirmed, I will apply that
same independence to the work of the Office of Inspector
General.
I believe the Office of Inspector General must apply the
law and conduct thorough investigations, audits and inspections
regardless of where the matter may lead. If I am confirmed, I
pledge to work with this Committee and the full Congress to
execute its important oversight duties.
Madam Chairman, Ranking Member Cantwell, and members of the
Committee, thank you again for the opportunity to appear before
you. I look forward to answering any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Beard follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Beard, and again, thank you
for your willingness to take on this task.
As I mentioned in my opening comments, I feel very strongly
that in order to have an effective Inspector General within the
Department of Energy or any agency the independence is the
priority.
As you have noted, you have been within the Department of
Energy now as an attorney for the past 27 years. The concern,
as I look at your background and your credentials, it is that
significant experience, and I understand that, but the roles
are very different from what you have been doing as effectively
a counselor or an advocate within the Department of Energy to
now one where you would be scrutinizing the Department that you
have been working within for these past 27 years looking for
areas to deal with waste, fraud and abuse.
Can you outline for me, with greater specificity, how you
envision a transition from your current position as the
Assistant General Counsel for General Law to now serving as the
DOE IG?
Ms. Beard. Senator, thank you very much, and thank you very
much for the question.
I agree with you that independence is paramount for an
Inspector General. As the Assistant General Counsel for General
Law, I have no programmatic responsibilities as a program
counsel for any of the Department's major programs. While I am
very familiar with the Department and its activities, I serve a
special role in the sense that it's mostly personnel law and
the ethics program which I've had the most experience in.
And as my role as the Designated Agency Ethics Official, I
had to preserve the public's trust in Federal employees. And
so, for example, over the years, many--there have been a number
of occasions where I have referred current and former Federal
DOE employees to the Inspector General's Office for review
because I was concerned they had information that may have
violated criminal statute or regulation.
So even though I am a Department's--an attorney with the
Department, I have this extra role of independence, and I
really strongly believe in my independence as the Designated
Agency Ethics Official. And I would carry that forward if I'm
fortunate enough to be confirmed.
The Chairman. Let me ask then about the duty to Congress,
and this relates primarily to reports to Congress itself. How
will you ensure that you are using every appropriate means that
you have with regards to communication to make sure that
Congress is fully informed of the proper operations of the
Department of Energy? And how do you see this role here?
For us here in Congress we think it is pretty clearly
delineated. But the responsibility to report to Congress when
you see things, how would you ensure that you are fulfilling
that duty and that responsibility?
Ms. Beard. Thank you again for the question, Madam
Chairman.
As you pointed out in your opening remarks, the DOE Act
itself refers to the Department of Energy's Inspector General
and its role dealing with Congress. And I take the law very
seriously and would follow that.
It's important not only to issue our reports and make them
publicly available and make them aware to the Congress and the
American public but also working with staff and Committee and
members to make sure that issues are appropriately addressed.
The Chairman. What do you do then when you are unable to
gain the information that you feel can best inform you that in
turn can best inform Congress? How would you view your
responsibility to obtain that full and factual information?
Ms. Beard. Again, thank you.
For me, as far as I'm aware and this is based on
conversations I've had with the former Inspector General while
he was still at the Department, historically there has not been
a problem at the Department with getting information that's
needed from the Department for the Inspector General's Office.
And I, in order for the Inspector General to do his or her
job and the staff of the Office to do their job, they must have
access to that information. And if it ever arose that we were
not gained appropriate access, if I was confirmed, I would take
serious and prompt action to make sure that we got everything
we needed in order to do our jobs and conduct audits,
inspections and investigations.
The Chairman. Well I think that that is an important part
because we, I think, have seen recently some interactions
between some IGs, not necessarily within the Department of
Energy, but some IGs and their agencies that have had a
situation where that access to information has not been made
readily available and that has been a situation of conflict.
Let me turn to my colleague, Senator Cantwell.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Beard, obviously, as I mentioned in my opening
statement, the issue of Hanford cleanup is a big concern to, I
think, the whole nation but certainly the State of Washington
continues to be a watch dog on this issue as well. Both my
colleague and I have pushed the Secretary on the implementation
of a 2014 report from Savannah River on their issues of
cleaning up as it relates to worker safety and making sure that
tank vapors and things of that nature are dealt with.
So I plan to follow up this week with the Secretary on the
implementation of that plan and his commitment to it. But I am
curious, because I know we have had many reports, I think, from
the Inspector General's Office in the past. I think there have
been worker safety issues including as many as weaknesses in 16
different Inspector General reports. So this is not about
publishing a report. This is about getting results. Can you
comment on how you would correct just publicizing these issues
as opposed to helping to elevate?
My opinion is that I have been with Inspector Generals at
various oversight hearings for other Committee members, and I
have seen which Inspector Generals have used their authority to
elevate the issues in a way that certainly captures the
attention of the people needed.
How would you address the fact that a lot of worker safety
issues have been in previous reports but we have not created
the culture to address all of them?
Ms. Beard. Thank you for the question, Senator.
I agree with you that issuing all the reports in the world
does not make a difference if action isn't taken on them. And
in fact I was just looking, not long ago, at an inspector
general's report that was issued by the Department that pointed
out issues that had been around. The last time they looked at
the issue five years previously had not been adequately
addressed in that five-year period.
If I'm confirmed I would like to take a more robust
approach to making sure that the--of tracking and making sure
that the Department is taking corrective action on
recommendations that are made and making sure we are making it
public as well when actions are not being taken, whether
through webpage, issuing special notices or reports and making
sure that there is a very robust follow up on recommendations.
Senator Cantwell. So you believe in escalating those issues
in a public way that causes action to happen?
Ms. Beard. If it doesn't happen I do believe in----
Senator Cantwell. Well wouldn't you say five years is long
enough?
Ms. Beard. Five years is more than long enough.
And so it would be much shorter than five years but that
was a report I saw recently. And I think it does need to get
taken seriously and action needs to be taken. And I do believe
it should be done quickly and more robust follow up I think is
needed.
Senator Cantwell. What role do you think whistleblowers
play?
Ms. Beard. I think whistleblowers play--thank you again for
the question.
I think whistleblowers play a very important role. And it's
very important that whistleblowers feel and are, in fact,
protected from retaliation.
Senator Cantwell. To the Chairwoman's question about your
past relationship with the agency and then moving over to this
issue, how would you best address this using your past
experiences to show your fortitude in making sure that your
former colleagues are inspected in a robust way as you just
mentioned?
Ms. Beard. I personally have not been involved in any
contract or whistleblower issues. I'm aware of a number of them
just because of my time at the Department.
But I think it's very important that the Department take
the steps it needs to take to make sure that whistleblowers are
protected and that the law is fully followed in this area. And
it's something that we would put adequate resources on within
the Inspector General's Office, if I am confirmed, to ensure
those actions are being taken.
The fact that it's been involved, an ongoing issue at the
Department, even though I have not been involved in it, I do
not have any particular background in it. But it's something
that I'm very well aware of.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cantwell.
Senator Barrasso?
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Following up on some of the things that Senator Murkowski
asked and said in her opening statement. You have served at the
Department of Energy since 1989 as Senator Murkowski mentioned,
a long, distinguished career. You have been a legal advocate
for the agency for 27 years. The position to which you have
been nominated, the position of Inspector General, is
effectively a lifetime appointment. If confirmed, you will be
asked to audit and investigate an agency that you have promoted
for decades, as Senator Murkowski has said. If confirmed, you
will be asked to audit and investigate colleagues, people with
whom you have worked with decades and who made decisions based
upon your own advice. I think all of us have questions about
whether you or anyone in these circumstances would be able to
exercise sufficient independence and objectivity to be an
effective Inspector General.
I understand that prior to your nomination the General
Counsel of the Department asked you if you had an interest in
filling this vacancy. To be candid, I find that cause for
concern that they would ask if you were willing to fill the
vacancy. Is it reasonable for us to assume that after 27 years,
as an advocate for the Department, that you will be an
effective watch dog of that same Department?
Ms. Beard. Thank you for the question, Senator.
Most of my Federal career at the Department has been in the
Department's Ethics program where I was responsible for
ensuring that the Department's employees followed the statutes,
the laws, and regulations on confidential matters and part of
that is making sure that the American public and the Congress
have the, to show the trust that they can have on our public
service, in our public servants.
In that capacity I have given advice to employees regarding
conflicts of interest and other matters. During those 27 years
I've been at the Department no legal advice that I've ever
given has been before the Inspector General's Office. I do not
envision that any legal advice I give in the future, that I've
given, in the future will be in front of the Inspector
General's Office for review.
But as part of that I actually have told employees they
can't do things. I mentioned in my opening comments that I give
honest and unbiased advice.
What I did not mention in my opening comments is often the
advice I give is something the employee does not want to hear.
It has never stopped me from giving the advice I think is
appropriate, and I would continue to follow that independence
if I was confirmed as Inspector General.
I think it's very important in my ethics capacity as well
if I was to be confirmed as Inspector General is to discover
the facts, apply the law and follow wherever they lead
fearlessly, without being concerned about where they may point.
And that is what I've done in my last 27 years as a Federal
employee, and I would continue to do that, Senator.
Senator Barrasso. You have served as Assistant General
Counsel for General Law at the Department since 2004, so the
last 11/12 years. In this capacity you have addressed questions
concerning the Department's compliance with Federal law
including the Freedom of Information Act, ethics laws,
Congressional appropriations.
Have you also worked on issues related to the Department's
compliance with what is called the Miscellaneous Receipts
Statute? That is the law that requires officials who receive
proceeds on behalf of the Federal Government to deposit those
proceeds into the Treasury.
Ms. Beard. Yes, Senator, appropriations law is within the
area of my office.
Senator Barrasso. In 2011 the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) found that the Department's transfers of excess
uranium to USEC into Fluor Corporation violated the
Miscellaneous Receipts Statute. The Office of General Counsel
disputed the GAO's findings. Have you worked on issues related
to the Miscellaneous Receipts Statute and the Department's
transfers of excess uranium, that specific component?
Ms. Beard. Yes, Senator, my office as well as several
others in the Office of General Counsel did work on that.
Senator Barrasso. So if confirmed will you recuse yourself
then from matters involving the Department's transfers of
excess uranium?
Ms. Beard. Senator, if a matter comes up regarding the
legal opinion that I was one of the people who worked on comes
up? Yes, I would recuse myself. I have not been involved itself
in any particular transfers involving excess uranium.
Senator Barrasso. Have you worked on issues related to the
Department's compliance with the Atomic Energy Act and the USEC
Privatization Act?
Ms. Beard. I have--I'm thinking off the top of my head,
sir. My recollection is I've not worked on anything exactly
involving the USEC Privatization Act.
Senator Barrasso. In going through all this, because in
September 2015 the Inspector General issued a report on
enforcement activities at the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC). Among other things, the report examined
whether FERC and the utility, Exelon, arranged a quid pro quo
connecting FERC's approval of Exelon's merger with
Constellation Energy to Constellation's settlement with FERC.
I have to tell you I was very unimpressed with the
Inspector General's investigation into the matter. I was
especially disappointed that the Inspector General was
unwilling to speak with individuals outside of FERC during this
year-long investigation.
I know you may not be completely familiar with the details
of the report, but as a general matter, do you believe an
Inspector General should be willing to speak with individuals
outside of the government when investigating the government?
Ms. Beard. Thank you for the question, Senator.
I'm not familiar with the FERC matter. I have never had any
responsibility regarding FERC in my job at the Department of
Energy.
I do think it's important that the Inspector General's
Office gather all relevant facts in order to pursue a matter it
is looking at, regardless of where the individuals are who have
those facts.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Warren?
Senator Warren. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Ms. Beard, thank you for being here today.
In recent years several massive new natural gas pipelines
have been proposed in New England. Over and over again I have
heard from citizens and from elected officials in Massachusetts
who are deeply concerned about the impact of these projects on
their property and in their communities. They feel like their
voices have not been heard and their interests have not been
represented.
These complaints have been much stronger even for Kinder
Morgan's Northeast Energy Direct project, and that specific
pipeline was recently suspended. But others like Spectra's
Access Northeast project are still moving forward, and believe
me, concerns about pipeline projects are not going away.
The Federal agency tasked with approving these pipelines is
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, for which
the Department of Energy's Inspector General has oversight. For
the last several years the Office of the Inspector General has
proposed an audit of FERC's permitting process. Ms. Beard, what
is the status of this audit, as you understand it?
Ms. Beard. Thank you for the question, Senator.
It is my understanding that the audit is ongoing at this
time, but I'm not privy to any information regarding it other
than that.
Senator Warren. Let me ask the question then another way.
If confirmed, will you prioritize the completion of this audit?
Ms. Beard. Again, thank you, Senator.
If confirmed I will prioritize the completion of the audit.
My understanding, I should have added, is that right now
considerable resources are being used on it.
Senator Warren. But you will make this a priority?
Ms. Beard. But I will make it a priority.
Senator Warren. You personally will make this a priority.
I know that Senator Shaheen and the rest of the New
Hampshire delegation have raised this with the Office of the
Inspector General before, but I think that it is extremely
important that this audit thoroughly reviews the way that FERC
involves the public in the permitting process. Will this audit
focus on FERC's role in facilitating public involvement in the
permitting process?
Ms. Beard. My understanding and again, I do not have a very
much specific since this is an ongoing matter within the Office
of Inspector General, is that it's looking at the law, policies
and procedures which includes public engagement.
Senator Warren. Alright. And you will make a commitment to
make sure it is looking at public engagement?
Ms. Beard. My understanding, again Senator, is that is
within the scope of the audit right now.
Senator Warren. Excellent.
I appreciate that FERC's permitting process is being
reviewed by the Inspector General's Office, and I look forward
to seeing the results of this audit.
But even outside the purview of this particular audit, it
is extremely important that FERC is making decisions that are
really in the best interest of the people who will be most
directly affected. If you are confirmed will you commit to
working with me to address concerns about FERC's responsiveness
to the public interest?
Ms. Beard. Senator, again, thank you for the question.
If confirmed I do commit to work with you and your staff
regarding making sure that FERC is following the laws, policies
and procedures.
Senator Warren. Thank you, Ms. Beard.
This is very important to me. Pipelines affect people's
homes, their property, their communities and they have every
right to be heard by the government on issues about pipeline
permits. I just want to make sure that happens.
I appreciate your coming here today to testify, and I look
forward to continuing to work with you on these issues. Thank
you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Warren.
Senator Daines?
Senator Daines. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Beard, thank you for coming here today. I know it is an
exciting moment, and it is great to have your family here with
you as well.
I also want to thank you for your long service to our
country. Twenty-seven years at the DOE is impressive as well as
commendable.
As you know the Office of the Inspector General is the so-
called watch dog of the Department of Energy. Their primary
role is to perform regular audits, inspections and
investigations along with being a resource to Congress. Because
of this role the Inspector General is often at odds with the
Department. That is really what they are called to do. Yet you
have spent most of your career as a lawyer for the Department
of Energy and your specialties have been focused on ethics and
general law, not necessarily auditing and investigations.
The question is do you think that you will be able to
transition into the watch dog role and do you think that your
lack of experience in auditing and investigations will help or
hinder that transition?
Ms. Beard. Thank you very much for the question, Senator.
I think already in my role in ethics it is a semi-watch dog
role because of--it is my job to ensure that the Department has
a robust ethics program and that includes, when need be, just
referring employees and former employees to the Inspector
General's Office which I have done on numerous occasions in the
past, including employees who I personally knew well and
personally liked. And so I really strongly believe in my
independence in that role and I would believe I would carry
that independence forward if I became Inspector General and was
fortunate enough to be confirmed.
I have been involved in a number of audits with the
Inspector General's Office involving personnel law matters at
the Department as well as some investigations as well involving
some issues that do touch general law matters. I do have
experience in both of those areas even though I'm not,
obviously, an accountant.
Senator Daines. Curious given you have a long history in
the DOE you have a track record of working with the IG in the
past. As you look at the IGs who have performed in the past,
what would you say that you would like to do as you get a
chance to put your fingerprints on this IG role that would make
the IG role even more effective given you seem to have a lot of
experience working with the IG?
Ms. Beard. Thank you again for the question, Senator.
One of the areas where I would like to see some changes is
more robust follow up on recommendations that are being made
and making sure that the Department is taking or FERC is taking
action as recommended by the Inspector General in the reports
that are issued.
Senator Daines. Okay.
I am going to pivot over and talk about energy. Energy
production is a major part of our economy in Montana. We had an
energy summit in Montana about a month ago. Looking forward
over the next 35 years, with projections out to 2050, we had a
representative from the U.S. Chamber that came and spoke.
Energy consumption in the world is going to be up 84 percent
according to their forecast, because we are going to add two
billion more people to the planet between now and 2050.
He said we have an abundance of traditional fuels like oil,
gas and coal as well as renewables such as wind and
hydroelectric in Montana. We see the importance of having a
diverse energy portfolio, not only for our economy but also for
our national security, in providing the necessary power to keep
the lights on and keep our mobile devices charged.
In the eastern half of our state coal is that major player.
Montana has some of the cleanest coal out there, but it is
becoming more and more obvious that this Administration is
attempting to shut down coal and kill hundreds of jobs in
Montana instead of investing in clean coal technology or in
mines that produce cleaner coal like we have in Montana.
There was a recent report from the Inspector General's
Office that recommends stopping the funding of a clean coal
project ran by Summit Texas Clean Energy, LLC. First of all,
are you aware of that report?
Ms. Beard. Senator, I'm aware the report was issued.
Senator Daines. I think the official number for the file
was OIGSR1602. Did you have a chance to see what the findings
were in that report?
Ms. Beard. I looked at it briefly, but I'm not that
familiar with it, sir.
Senator Daines. Do you think that the potential Inspector
General, as the potential IG, that you should at least have a
working knowledge of past decisions, especially one that was as
recent as last month?
Ms. Beard. Again, Senator, I have looked at it but I'm--all
I've--I'm aware of the issues that was in the report.
Senator Daines. I will say, each year I am disappointed in
the Administration's lack of prioritization of clean coal
technology and funding in its budget, and I do think we need to
continue funding clean coal technology and do it responsibly.
Thanks for your time.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Daines.
Senator Cassidy?
Senator Cassidy. Hello, Ms. Beard. Handsome family.
How important is programmatic knowledge, because clearly
one of the things that you would bring to the table verses
someone who might have more previous experience as an IG is
that you have been within the Department of Administration. If
you will, I can imagine that you could, particularly as an
ethics officer have, kind of, studied, looked around over the
years and thought well maybe that would be a place to
investigate or this would be a place that would I be in a
different role. Can't say that because, obviously, as an ethics
officer you have to think about such things. So my first
question is how important is programmatic knowledge as regards
the execution of your duties? I will start with that.
Ms. Beard. Obviously--thank you again for the question,
Senator.
Obviously I've been at the Department a long time, and I
have broad general knowledge of the Department's programs. I
have never been in a position where I'm setting policy for the
Department or actually running programs for the Department
other than the ethics program.
Senator Cassidy. Except that.
Now I am from Louisiana. I am a doctor, but I know a fair
amount about energy just because energy is so much a part of my
economy. So patients would come, and they did some aspect of
energy and you make chit chat.
So let me ask. Is your awareness of the issues at the DOE
along the line of mine as a physician, you know, the people you
just talk to over the water cooler, so to speak, or would it be
of a deeper level?
Ms. Beard. It's probably a deeper level than that, Senator.
But again, I do not have programmatic responsibilities of those
areas, but I have been in many meetings where issues have been
discussed and I've learned about them over the years.
Senator Cassidy. How important is in depth programmatic
understanding? I do not know the answer to this. I am asking
how important is great depth of programmatic knowledge? How
important is it?
Ms. Beard. I think to me, Senator, the advantage of
somebody from within the Department becoming the Inspector
General is that I'm not going to have to spend the first six
months learning about the various programs and the acronyms and
what not for the Department. I do have a general programmatic
knowledge, but not an in depth programmatic knowledge. But
that's something that I think I can pick up quickly as we're
looking at various audits and inspections.
Senator Cassidy. So the general knowledge portion of the
learning curve you have under your belt. But if I were to ask a
particular question, for example, in Louisiana the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve, that would require more research on your
part?
Ms. Beard. I'm aware of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and
issues, for example, involving draw down of the reserve, but
I'm not, I've never worked on an actual draw down matter.
Senator Cassidy. Gotcha.
It has come to my attention that Mr. Rickey Hass, the
Acting Inspector General at DOE and the former Deputy Inspector
General for Audit Services, plans to retire. Now I gather as an
ethics person audits was not your bailiwick, if you will. You
have mentioned that.
Do you have a sense of who you are going to hire and, if
appointed, what characteristics you would look for in such a
person?
Ms. Beard. I have--thank you again for the question,
Senator.
I have no sense of who I would hire. It would be an open
competition to fill the position.
I would look for somebody with a strong auditing background
and he also was in charge of investigations as well, so a
strong investigation background as well.
Senator Cassidy. Now you also have a law enforcement
responsibility. You could pack heat if you wished.
But again, in ethics that is quite a different, I think,
mindset. How do you adjust from the mindset of, kind of, okay,
this is what you need to do, listen you will get in trouble if
you cross the line and do not cross that line, but if you cross
the line I have to report you verses up against the wall. Do
you follow what I am saying?
Ms. Beard. Yes, Senator, I do follow what you're saying.
As a lawyer I take following the law very seriously. I
believe in having a very robust investigation program within
the Department, and I would hope I would continue making sure
that we have a very strong law enforcement process.
Senator Cassidy. Okay, I get that.
It does seem that there is going to have to be some sort of
an adjustment in how you approach an issue. I presume the
gravity of something which was related to law enforcement may
just be more.
My aide just passed me something. If I could read his
writing, I would have another question. [Laughter.]
I yield back. Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Franken.
Senator Franken. I want to thank my staff for typing out
the questions.
First of all, Ms. Beard, thank you for your 25 years with
the Department of Energy and your dedication to serving the
public good. Sometimes I think that when we hear criticisms of
unelected bureaucrats I wish those people could meet unelected
bureaucrats like yourself. So thank you.
As you know probably better than anybody else in this room
the Inspector General is constantly faced with politically
heated issues but must remain nonpartisan and impartial to
external pressures. Could you tell me about how you view the
role of the Office of Inspector General as an independent
entity?
Ms. Beard. Thank you very much for the question, Senator.
To me, the Inspector General is the main watch dog for the
Department, for the public as well as for the Congress. And as
it was pointed out in the Department of Energy Organization
Act, it reports it has responsibility both to the Secretary of
Energy as well as to the Congress as far as these reporting
mechanisms and making sure that issues come to public light.
I think it's very important. I think having a strong,
independent Inspector General helps an agency complete its
mission, and it really is a furtherance and a great help to the
agency.
Senator Franken. Thank you.
Ms. Beard, I want to hear your thoughts about the DOE-
administered mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility, the MOX
facility for short. When construction of the MOX facility
commenced in 2007, estimated costs for the project were about
$5 billion. U.S. taxpayers have already spent that amount on
the project, but now the expected costs have ballooned to up to
$30 billion.
While I understand it is impossible to perfectly estimate
the costs of some of these projects, I am concerned about
funding a project that seems to get more expensive by the day.
The Office of the Inspector General at DOE seems to share these
concerns which they expressed in an audit report in May 2014.
If you are confirmed how would you follow up with the
Inspector General's concerns regarding the cost and management
of the MOX project? And has DOE been doing an adequate job
inspecting the ongoing work of the MOX facility?
Ms. Beard. Thank you for the question, Senator.
I share your concern about making sure that taxpayer
dollars are well spent. They are all of our money, and I'd like
to see them spent wisely across all agencies including the
Department.
And as I was talking about earlier, I'd like to see a more
robust follow up within the Office of Inspector General and
some recommendations. I would ensure that whether any
recommendations were in that particular report were
implemented, whether the Department has taken actions on them
and what the timeframe of those actions are, and if need be, do
additional work at MOX because, obviously, there's a very major
project the Department has.
Senator Franken. Yes, this has expanded from an estimated
$5 billion to an estimated up to $30 billion. While you are
obviously not in a policy making position, there has to be
decisions made about whether to spend that extra $25 billion
and go forward with it.
How does your role as Inspector General inform the policy
makers' decisions about whether to go forward with this,
because there are alternative ways to use this fuel or we are
attempting to make it fuel with this material from weapons?
Ms. Beard. Senator, I know you're well aware Inspector
Generals do not set policy; however, they can put out facts and
information to inform policy makers so they can make better
decisions. And so part of that process of making sure that the
facts are out there so policy makers can use them to make
decisions on whether something like MOX should go forward.
Senator Franken. Right, because I would think that for the
policy makers there are going to be decisions that have to be
made about this whether to go forward, and I think a lot of
that will be based on the conclusions that the Inspector
General's Office comes up with.
Thank you for your testimony, and thank you for your
service to this country.
Madam Chair.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Franken.
I appreciate you bringing up the issue of the MOX facility
and how you might deal with that. There has obviously been a
great deal of discussion about that in the Committee over,
certainly, the past year, if not more.
I am going to ask what will probably be a very general
question by using a specific example. The Iran deal, clearly a
divergence of views on that. I am one who has expressed a great
deal of concern about the Iran deal. While this Committee does
not have jurisdiction over foreign affairs, there are certain
aspects of implementation of this agreement that, as IG, you
would have oversight of whether it is NNSA, DOE, EIA. They are
part of the implementation and the monitoring.
You have politics at play. I know people would be shocked
to hear that. But you, again, are in this role as an
independent entity.
Are you concerned that you could be in situations where the
Administration has clearly taken a very specific position and
given that does it put undue political pressure on career
professionals who may perhaps hold back on their own views
because of the nature of the agreement but where they sit?
It is a very general question and perhaps not clearly
articulated, but it is one that we deal with in our world where
how you balance the politics of an issue verses just being able
to look straight forward at the facts and making sure that you,
as an IG, are the one who really is intent on gaining
information, factual information and moving forward
recommendations in an unbiased and really not influenced by
political view. I am not asking you to opine one way or another
on the Iran deal, but I use that as an example of something
that can be very politically charged. How will you navigate
that?
Ms. Beard. Thank you very much for the question, Madam
Chairman.
I think in my role already in the General Counsel's Office,
as the designated agency ethics official and if I were
fortunate enough to be confirmed as Inspector General, the key
here is independence and being willing to follow, to find the
facts, follow the law, apply the law and see where it goes
without being concerned about where--without fearlessly and not
being concerned on the outcome of no matter where it may point.
To me it's really important that the Inspector General have
that, to be able to do that.
I think that in the DOE Organization Act, you know, it's
clear that the Inspector General reports to the Secretary, only
the Deputy Secretary.
And it also is clear, you know, there's no time limit on
the position. I've worked previously with both, in both
Republican and Democratic Administrations, and I think that I
would be able to do that as Inspector General and carry that
forward and be independent in that way and not worry about it.
I also have the advantage, I will admit this, of being
almost retirement eligible, so I don't have to worry about it
from that perspective either. [Laughter.]
The Chairman. You have thought about that.
Let me ask about contract management because so much of
what comes through DOE is managed by contractors as opposed to
Federal employees. So the task of directing and managing and
overseeing and really incentivizing these contractors, I think,
is important for the success of the mission.
I have two questions here. What do you view is the DOE IG's
role in improving and ensuring effective contract management
because that has got to be a priority? But also in evaluating
and scrutinizing contractor award fees because there have been
issues that have presented themselves in terms of mission and
scope of the contracts and how these award fees are balanced
with that. So if you can speak generally to the role of
contract management and specific to award fees.
Ms. Beard. Thank you very much for the question, Madam
Chairman.
As you are all well aware the Department does the vast
majority of its business through major contracts. I have not
personally been involved in any award fee issues while I was in
the Counsel's Office, but clearly if you are looking at how
taxpayer dollars are being spent at the Department that's where
the vast majority of money is going.
I think the role of Inspector General, again, is policing
as a watch dog of how prudently that money is spent. Issues
like award fees would obviously be an issue that an Inspector
General would look at.
The Chairman. Let me turn to Senator Wyden.
Senator Wyden. Thank you very much.
Senator Franken. Madam Chair?
Madam Chair, since you brought it up I think it would be a
really good idea to ask the nominee her personal views on the
Iran deal.
The Chairman. I am not going to get into----
Senator Franken. I am joking, that was just--I just wanted
to get that out of the way. I knew that you were not asking
that.
The Chairman. Senator Wyden?
Senator Wyden. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Ms. Beard, as we visited yesterday, Hanford and the high
level radioactive wastes there join the Columbia River which is
the lifeblood of my state and the lifeblood for everything from
recreation to business, environmental values. This is right at
the heart of the DNA of the people that I represent. I was
there last week, and the Hanford site's legacy of failed
performance and retaliation against whistleblowers and workers
who raised safety concerns is alive and well.
The GAO pointed out last year $19 billion has been spent
over the past 25 years to clean up these high level,
radioactive wastes at Hanford. So far not a gallon, not a
single gallon, of high level, radioactive waste has actually
been treated. Under the current schedule the waste treatment
plant will not be in full operation for another 20 years. If
getting this waste cleaned up was not so essential to public
health and environmental protection, I guess it might be a
sequel for the movie, Money Pit.
What I would like to know is what we talked about
yesterday. What, as Inspector General, would you do,
specifically, to end business as usual at Hanford?
Ms. Beard. Thank you very much for the question, Senator.
I share your concerns about how taxpayer money is being
spent at Hanford, and I also share your concerns regarding
worker safety that we talked about yesterday as well.
The Office of Inspector General has a history of issuing a
number of reports concerning the Hanford site. If I were
fortunate enough to be confirmed, I envision that that history
would continue and with additional reports.
As I also mentioned I'd like to see a more robust follow up
on the recommendations that are made in the reports issued by
the Inspector General's Office. And that would be a main focus
of mine if I were fortunate enough to be confirmed, is that
follow up to making sure the Department is actually taking the
actions that are being recommended.
Senator Wyden. So I listened carefully to those words.
You share my concerns. I cannot tell you, and I say this
respectfully because I enjoyed visiting with you and I was
Chair of this Committee so I know this is a tough job, I cannot
tell you how many times a nominee has said, ``I share your
concerns.'' Then you said you are going to do reports, and I
cannot tell you how many times I heard about reports. Then
something about action, although I was not really clear what
that was all about.
But that is not changing business as usual, Ms. Beard, that
is more of the same. Now if you told me that it was your plan,
after a report was issued, to come up with a timetable to
implement the recommendations within a specific period of time,
I might say that, at least, sounds like something might change.
But what has concerned me is you have been there at the
Department of Energy for 27 years, not specifically on these
kinds of issues, and I have real questions, particularly when
there is such a need to change business as usual and produce
some new accountability and change the policies.
When I was there last week, for example, it just seemed
like it took forever to drag out what was going to be done to
inspect the bottom of the really dangerous tank. I was told,
well gee, technologically we couldn't do it but we were going
to look at such and such. Finally after going round and round
there was something about some sort of science grant that could
produce some changes.
You are going to walk in to an area where you are going to
see a huge array of pressing safety concerns at a time when
vast sums of money are going to be going out the door, as has
been the case for decades now, and it does not seem like much
is going to change.
So let me give you another round at it. I thought the last
part of your answer at least suggested a kernel of reform. But
why don't you take another crack at it?
Ms. Beard. Thank you very much, Senator.
I may have not been clear. Let me talk a little bit more
about what I envision for robust follow up.
What I've seen in some cases in my time at the Department
is when it comes to reports issued by the Office of Inspector
General is they issue a report, it has recommendations, and the
Department does not do a lot with them or takes an awful long
time to do anything with them.
I was mentioning earlier a report I had just seen recently,
those issued by the Inspector General, which basically found
that they were looking at something five years later and still
nothing had been done. And that's not acceptable.
And so what I was talking about from the Inspector
General's point of view, if I'm fortunate enough to be
confirmed, is to have more robust follow up to make sure the
Department is taking action. And if the Department is not
taking action, to be more public about the action that's not
being taken and working with the Congress and working with the
Secretary to make sure the Secretary is aware and the Congress
is aware that actions are not being taken, if that's the case.
Senator Wyden. I am over my time. I don't know where you
are, Madam Chair, in terms of numbers of rounds and who is
where. Whenever you----
The Chairman. We are working on seconds.
Senator Wyden. Great, then I will wait for the second
round.
The Chairman. Senator Franken is next.
Senator Wyden. I will wait for that.
Senator Franken. No, go ahead, please.
Senator Wyden. No, no, I am--whatever.
Senator Franken. No, no, I think you are on to----
The Chairman. Senator Wyden, you can continue.
Senator Franken. Continue if you want.
Senator Wyden. I just have two other questions real
briefly.
Why don't you furnish me in writing how you would make a
change and a specific kind of timetable for implementing the
recommendations of the Inspector General, because I know that
the Committee under the Chair wants to move quickly. Why don't
we say 72 hours? Just give me some answers on the timetable.
Second, we have a very serious problem with whistleblowers.
I went with the Attorney General, outstanding Attorney
General Bob Ferguson, and met with the tank farm workers who
have been exposed to these hazardous chemical vapors. Four
dozen workers have complained of chemical exposure in the past
ten days, just in the last ten days. This isn't some kind of
abstraction from eons ago. But in ten days 48 workers have
complained of chemical exposure, and the Department says it is
not a problem.
The workers say that they're being threatened with losing
their jobs. Hard to see why they wouldn't be worried because
there are loads of examples. These problems exist throughout
the DOE complex. We saw it at Savannah River. This is an area
my colleagues, Senators McCaskill, Markey, and I have been in
together.
What will you do to blow the whistle on the Department's
chronic mistreatment of whistleblowers?
Ms. Beard. Thank you again for the question, Senator.
In the past I know that the Office of Inspector General has
looked at the whistleblower issue previously. I think that it's
a very important issue. I think whistleblowers play a very
important role in making sure that the public is aware and the
government is aware of some things that are of inappropriate
activities that are going on. And I also think it's very
important that whistleblowers be free of retaliation and be
able to feel that they can come forward without fear of losing
their jobs.
In the past, as I mentioned earlier, the Office of
Inspector General has looked at some matters regarding
whistleblowers. If I'm fortunate enough to be confirmed, I
would do that again.
In addition, I know there are some matters pending right
now within the Office of Inspector General regarding
whistleblowers and I would work to make sure those are handled
promptly and made--and resolve it as quickly as possible.
Senator Wyden. I am way over my time.
I hope in writing you will tell me specifically what would
change because the answer you gave me on that point is
virtually identical to what I have heard from individuals with
respect to this position year after year.
So hold the record open. I would like to know specifically
what is going to change with respect to these whistleblowers.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the
extra time.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Wyden. We would ask that
the nominee please provide the information. As Senator Wyden
has said, the more expeditiously we can get responses to the
members' requests, the more quickly we can move. So thank you,
Senator Wyden and thank you, Senator Franken.
I have just one final question and then we will wrap up
here this morning.
There has been great discussion about your years of service
within the Department, 27 years within the Department of Law.
That is considerable legal background. I also understand your
comment about not being involved in the programmatic areas but
having a very keen focus on the ethics and other areas as well.
But so much of what IGs are tasked to do relates to the
auditing that goes on. Looking at your background I do not see
anything that relates to direct auditing experience. So if you
can give me either anything that you might think would be
helpful in that regard in terms of your experience or inform me
how you would intend to manage a group of professionals who
perform these audits and inspections and evaluations without
having performed such roles yourself?
Ms. Beard. Thank you very much for the question, Senator.
Well, I've never been an auditor. I'm not an accountant. I
do have a background in a lot of appropriations areas which
does have some similar aspects to it.
The Chairman. Did you get that within DOE?
Ms. Beard. Yes, I do appropriations work for the
Department.
But in addition, if I was fortunate enough to be confirmed,
there are many other Inspector Generals who are lawyers. And I
know there are certain continuing education classes you can
take regarding the auditing function that some of them, I
think, are offered by the Council of the Inspectors General on
Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE) and other groups. And that is
something that I would definitely do to make sure I could do
that and so I can help make sure while I'm supervising the
teams of auditors, that I have the necessary background in that
area.
The Chairman. Well it is, indeed, a big task and an
incredibly important position, and as I noted in my comments,
for all intents and purposes this is not just an appointment to
a position that lasts for a term of an Administration but
continues beyond. So the process, the vetting process, that we
are going through right now as a Committee is an important one.
As you know, it will not be the only one that you will go
through, but taking that first cut here this morning before the
Energy Committee is important.
I appreciate your responses. I will appreciate, as I know
other colleagues will, your prompt replies to any questions
that you feel need to be supplemented today.
Again, we appreciate your willingness to step forward. To
your family who have joined you this morning and have been very
patient with the time, thank you very much.
We stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:14 a.m. the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED
----------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]