[Senate Hearing 111-940]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-940
IMPLEMENTATION, IMPROVEMENT, AND
SUSTAINABILITY: MANAGEMENT MATTERS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT,
THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE, AND THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE
of the
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 30, 2010
__________
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
63-863 PDF WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
JON TESTER, Montana LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
ROLAND W. BURRIS, Illinois
EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware
Michael L. Alexander, Staff Director
Brandon L. Milhorn, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Trina Driessnack Tyrer, Chief Clerk
Joyce Ward, Publications Clerk and GPO Detailee
OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE, AND THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii, Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts
ROLAND W. BURRIS, Illinois LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware
Lisa M. Powell, Staff Director
Evan W. Cash, Professional Staff Member
Jennifer A. Hemingway, Minority Staff Director
Sean M. Stiff, Professional Staff Member
Aaron H. Woolf, Chief Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statement:
Page
Senator Akaka................................................ 1
Senator Voinovich............................................ 3
WITNESSES
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Jane Holl Lute, Ph.D. Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security.............................................. 4
Cathleen A. Berrick, Managing Director, Homeland Security and
Justice Team, U.S. Government Accountability Office............ 14
Alphabetical List of Witnesses
Berrick, Cathleen A.:
Testimony.................................................... 14
Prepared statement........................................... 33
Lute, Jane Holl, Ph.D.:
Testimony.................................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 25
APPENDIX
Background....................................................... 53
Charts referenced by Senator Voinovich........................... 60
IMPLEMENTATION, IMPROVEMENT, AND
SUSTAINABILITY: MANAGEMENT MATTERS AT
THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 2010
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government
Management, the Federal Workforce,
and the District of Columbia,
of the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:32 p.m., in
room 342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Akaka,
Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators Akaka and Voinovich.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA
Senator Akaka. Good afternoon, everyone. This hearing of
the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the
Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia is called to
order.
I want to welcome everyone to another in our series of
hearings on the continued efforts to improve management at the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Implementing and transforming the Department of Homeland
Security from 22 separate agencies into a cohesive organization
has been on the Government Accountability Office's High-Risk
List since the Department's creation nearly 8 years ago, which
this Subcommittee has followed issues closely. Unfortunately,
progress has been slower than many expected and than any of us
would like to see. In some ways, the agency is still struggling
to forge a cohesive identity and to truly come together as a
unified department.
In January, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) will
once again update its High-Risk List for the new Congress.
While GAO has noted great progress in improving management and
DHS has dedicated tremendous resources to this issue, I believe
more progress will be needed before GAO will remove DHS
implementation and transformation from that list.
It is also vitally important that DHS improve the functions
within the Management Directorate under the leadership of Under
Secretary for Management Borras. According to Inspector General
reports and GAO, systemic problems remain in important
management areas, including human capital, acquisition, and
financial management.
I have been especially concerned with DHS's over-reliance
on service contractors who work side by side with Federal
employees. Some of these jobs are uncomfortably close to
crossing the line into inherently governmental functions, which
should only be performed by a Federal employee. I am very
pleased at the efforts of the agency, especially the Chief
Human Capital Officer (CHCO), in working to address this issue
and right-size the workforce mix.
Improving acquisition management is also vital to
preventing waste, fraud, and abuse at the Department. Many
high-cost projects have been initiated with too little
analysis, planning, and follow-up, costing millions of taxpayer
dollars and impacting the agency's mission. One of the most
high-profile examples has been the Secure Border Initiative
electronic fence, known as SBInet. After long delays, cost
overruns, inadequate performance, and frequently evolving
goals, DHS is beginning to get this project under control.
Financial management has also been an ongoing problem since
the Department's formation. Many DHS components still use
legacy financial management tools from their former agencies.
Unfortunately, the Department has never been able to obtain a
clean financial audit. The Department has tried to streamline
its financial management systems, putting all components on the
same system. However, this effort, now known as the
Transformation and Systems Consolidation (TASC) has been a
difficult one. TASC needs strong oversight, and I hope to hear
about the Department's progress on that today.
DHS also must lay the groundwork to sustain good management
of the third-largest Federal agency. Going forward, DHS must
develop a comprehensive management integration plan, including
performance measures, to ensure that the agency is meeting
mission objectives and continually improving performance.
Already, DHS has taken important steps in planning through its
Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR) and the Bottom-Up
Review, which the Deputy Secretary took the lead on. These
documents reinforce the need to establish metrics, and I hope
that the Department will build on those efforts.
Finally, I want to acknowledge that this will likely be our
last DHS management hearing with my good brother and good
friend, our Ranking Member, Senator Voinovich. I know that this
issue has been vitally important to him and I want to thank him
for his efforts and say that I intend to continue to monitor
this issue in the next Congress on his behalf. Much of the
progress that has been made is due in part to his invaluable
leadership here and on the Appropriations Committee, as well.
I also want to thank the Deputy Secretary for agreeing to
testify at this important hearing. Continued leadership and
attention from the highest levels is always important to move
this issue forward and make DHS one of the best managed
agencies in the government.
With that, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses
today and now would like to call on Senator Voinovich for his
opening remarks. Senator Voinovich.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR VOINOVICH
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One of the
things that I have pointed out to folks around here,
particularly the media, is that they are not aware of some of
the really good things that are happening in the U.S. Senate in
various committees and how chairmen and ranking members have
worked together to make a difference for our country.
I have thoroughly enjoyed working with you. One of the most
comforting things for me is that we started out about 10 years
ago to work together and had an agenda, and after you took over
as Chairman, we continued it. I am very pleased that you have
indicated that you are going to continue to work on the
Department of Homeland Security. Currently, I am trying to
identify a Republican who might be as interested in this as I
am to become your partner, because I do not think this is going
to be over tomorrow or the next day. It is going to continue to
take two or 3 years to get the Department to the point where
the transformation sticks and accomplishes what we started out
to do some time ago.
I would also like to say that I thought our meeting this
morning with Mr. Borras was worthwhile. I thought it was
productive. I was pleased with his presentation. One of the
things that stuck out, though, is there is a whole lot of work
to implement the plan that he shared with us, and one of the
things I would be interested in is to find out what GAO thinks
about the plan that has been put in place in terms of whether
it is going to meet the acquisition concerns that they have and
also whether or not there are sufficient metrics to judge
whether or not what has been prepared is actually going to
happen.
I would like to remind folks that this Department came into
being in 2002. It is the largest restructuring since the
Department of Defense was created in 1947. I was remarking this
morning, it may be the most gigantic management or
restructuring that has ever happened in the world. And we asked
the Department to protect us from terrorism and natural
disasters while addressing the organizational operation and
cultural challenges with merging 22 agencies. I think we all
knew that the transition would take time. GAO reminds us that
successful transformations of large organizations can take at
least 5 to 7 years. I sure learned that when I was mayor and as
Governor.
But I am frustrated that we are into the seventh year and
so many issues continue to plague the Department. It currently
is, as Senator Akaka says, the third largest cabinet agency,
with 220,000 employees and an estimated 210,000 contractors,
and an annual budget of nearly $45 billion. That is too big an
entity spending too much money to be susceptible to waste,
fraud, abuse, and mismanagement year after year. And
unfortunately, DHS continues to be on GAO's High-Risk List.
Helping DHS's transformation and implementation get off
that list has been one of our top priorities during the time I
have been in the Senate, and I was really hoping that this
issue would be removed before I retired. However, as I
mentioned, it does not appear that will be the case. It is
going to take probably another 2 to 3 years to do what we think
needs to be done.
So today, I look forward to discussing these matters with
our witnesses, in particular hearing from GAO with regard to
what more needs to be done for DHS transformation and
implementation to be removed from the list, and I am hopeful I
will also hear from DHS about their plans to implement GAO's
recommendations.
In my experience as mayor and Governor, I repeatedly
observed that the path of organizational success lies in
adopting best practices in management, including strategic
planning, performance measurement, and effectively leveraging
human capital. I know that DHS has adopted some such practices
and in turn has made progress toward better management. But I
also recognize that much remains to be done for DHS to be a
cohesive, efficient, and effective organization.
From our discussion today, I hope to leave here with a
better understanding of how close the Department is to having
that transformation and implementation plan and the time frame
that the Department thinks it is going to need to get the job
done.
I want to thank you, Deputy Secretary Lute and Ms. Berrick,
for appearing before our Subcommittee today and I look forward
to our discussion.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Voinovich.
On our first panel, it is my pleasure to welcome the
Honorable Jane Holl Lute, Deputy Secretary of the Department of
Homeland Security.
It is the custom of the Subcommittee to swear in the
witnesses and I ask you to stand and raise your right hand.
Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give this
Subcommittee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth, so help you God?
Ms. Lute. I do.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much. Let the record show
that the witness answered in the affirmative.
Secretary Lute, I want you to know that although your
remarks are limited to 5 minutes, your full statement will be
included in the record. So will you please proceed with your
statement.
TESTIMONY OF JANE HOLL LUTE,\1\ DEPUTY SECRETARY, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Ms. Lute. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Good
afternoon, Ranking Member Voinovich, Members of the
Subcommittee, and thank you for this opportunity to appear
before you to discuss the management integration efforts at the
Department of Homeland Security. I think, Mr. Chairman, as you
have noted, the Department has made significant progress in
integrating and reforming our acquisition, financial, and human
capital management while at the same time meeting
responsibilities of our critical missions, but we still have a
way to go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Lute appears in the Appendix on
page 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secretary Napolitano has consistently stressed the need for
the Department to operate as one DHS. To achieve that goal, we
have instituted an ambitious series of management and
efficiency reforms to ensure that DHS has the proper management
structure to succeed, can attract and retain top talent, and
can build a culture of effectiveness and efficiency to make the
Department leaner, smarter, and a better agency to protect our
Nation.
The broad context for these reforms derives from a major,
first of its kind effort by the Department to align its
resources with a comprehensive strategy to meet the Nation's
homeland security needs. The completion of the Quadrennial
Homeland Security Review and the Bottom-Up Review which
immediately followed, in addition to the subsequent work that
we have done to shape our fiscal year budgets from 2012 to
2016, represents a very significant milestone for this
Department.
Over the past 18 months, DHS has made tremendous strides in
integrating and reforming our acquisition, financial, and human
capital management, but we also know that success will require
additional hard work and continued support and flexibility as
we navigate this large management enterprise. We know, too,
that we could not do our work without the support of this
Subcommittee and we thank you both for the support that you
have given us.
In collaboration with the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and the Government Accountability Office, DHS has created
an initial integration strategy in 2010 that addressed several
high-risk management issues identified by GAO and outlined
steps to improve performance across functional operations. The
seven initiatives that constituted the first phase of this
integration strategy, which I address at length in my written
testimony, represent long-term cross-cutting efforts that will
lead to greater management integration over time.
But because we need to go beyond these initiatives, in May
of this year, I directed Under Secretary for Management Rafael
Borras to develop a comprehensive strategic management approach
to enhance the people, structures, and processes necessary to
meet our mission goals by integrating and aligning functional
areas at both the Department and component levels. As you both
have said, we need to emulate best practice and we need to have
replicable models of success under a wide variety of conditions
for every aspect of our operations.
We have arrayed this strategy around three key themes.
First, improve end-to-end management of the acquisition
process. Second, strengthen financial management and reporting.
Third, improve human capital management to ensure that we can
recruit and retain high-quality people.
In July and September, our top leadership from across the
Department met to discuss how best to augment the original seen
management integration initiatives and create more cohesive
structures and processes. In addition, we discussed the best
way to manage the assets, resources, and people, and the people
represent our Department's greatest asset. As we have
consistently stated, we really must have the right people in
the right place at the right time, properly resourced, to meet
the expectations of the American people. The enhanced
integration strategy has been shared with GAO and is being
tested across the Department with many of the enhancement
initiatives that will drive this strategy, targeted for
implementation in fiscal year 2011.
Ultimately, all DHS employees, from Border Patrol agents
and Transportation screening officers on the front lines to the
most senior executives, must understand how their roles and
responsibilities contribute to the Department's mission, and
that mission is to help build a safe and secure, resilient
place where the American way of life can thrive. That is the
essence of Homeland Security.
Before I close, I would like to acknowledge, Senator
Voinovich, your steadfast commitment to the management reform
and strengthening of this Department. I would like to thank you
for your public service and for your engagement with us. From
the time that we first met until this very moment, you have
been consistent in urging us to seek every opportunity to
improve. I thank you for that work, and Mr. Chairman, I thank
you and the Subcommittee for the work that you have engaged
with us.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today about
our management integration and strategic planning. We have made
significant progress in DHS and I believe we are on the right
track. Yet we know we still have considerable work to do, and
we look forward to working with this Subcommittee to implement
these critical reform efforts. Thank you.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much for your statement,
Secretary Lute. We will have two rounds of questions for you,
Madam Secretary.
In response to the GAO high-risk designation, DHS created
an integrated strategy for high-risk management as well as
corrective action plans to address management weaknesses.
Has DHS taken any actions to date or implemented the
integrated strategy and the corrective action plans?
Ms. Lute. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have. It may sound
strange for me to say, but in this regard, GAO has been our
best partner. They have been very clear with us. Last night, we
received a very detailed outline from them of the kinds of
things we need to do to what measure of sufficiency in order to
get off the High-Risk List. This has been a high priority for
me and certainly for the Secretary.
We have assembled tracking mechanisms in the Department
that identify each of the areas and each of the measurements
and criteria that GAO has outlined for removal from that list,
and we know now within each of those areas, whether it is the
commitment of top leadership, resources necessary to resolve
the risk area, validation of progress, and so on, what we need
to do. We have made a lot of progress, as these charts show,\1\
but they are all not green dots yet and we are determined that
they will be.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The charts referenced by Senator Voinovich appear in the
Appendix on page 60.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Akaka. The Quadrennial Homeland Security Review and
the Bottom-Up Review both emphasize the importance of
developing performance measures to address challenges. However,
neither of these reports contain measures and they do not
represent a comprehensive strategic management plan to address
GAO's recommendations.
Does DHS plan to issue a comprehensive strategic management
integration plan?
Ms. Lute. Mr. Chairman, we have had a number of plans in
each of the management areas--human capital, as you mentioned,
financial reform, acquisition reform, Information Technology
(IT) reform, as well--and together, under the umbrella of the
enhancements that I spoke about in my oral statement, these
represent our management plan. They are not enough, though, and
with your permission, I would just like to take a step back.
The QHSR was really designed to say, what is the mission of
the Department and how will we achieve that mission? How will
we achieve a safe, secure, resilient place here in the United
States?
We say we have five key missions: Preventing terrorism;
securing our borders; enforcing our immigration laws; ensuring
cyber security; building national resilience. And we talk in
the QHSR about how we will know, what are the things we need to
do in each of those areas, in addition to other mission areas
for which we have responsibility that support our national and
homeland security.
In turn, we talk about the objectives we are trying to
achieve, but what you are asking about is the essential
underpinnings, the plumbing and wiring of the successful
execution of those missions, because in our view, the American
people have a right to expect that we can do three things: That
we can execute those missions that we have outlined as central
to a safe and secure homeland; that we can run ourselves, and
that we can run ourselves with the accountability and
transparency of a respectable public sector organization; and
the third thing that they can expect is that we can account for
the resources that have been entrusted to us and demonstrate
responsible financial stewardship.
So our approach to management is mindful of the missions we
need to accomplish, mindful of the fact that the Department of
Homeland Security is an operational department. The vast
majority of men and women who wake up to serve this country
every day in Homeland Security are operators and they are
supported by equally hard-working headquarters and management
personnel who are determined to have those operations succeed.
Senator Akaka. Your testimony discussed the Department's
effort to create a single financial management tool, a project
known as TASC, which has grown to include acquisition and asset
management. Earlier this year, OMB ordered that all agencies
halt further development of financial management systems for
the time being. Your testimony states that you are working with
OMB to align TASC with OMB policy. What is the current state of
TASC, and how do you envision it changing as a result of
consultation with OMB?
Ms. Lute. As you know, Mr. Chairman, well, we have had
serious deficiencies in the Department with respect to our
financial management business systems, in part due to aging
legacy systems and the lack of integration among the systems,
whether it is financial systems, asset management systems, or
acquisition systems, as well. TASC was a program that was in
progress, and as you have rightly noted, we are working closely
with OMB to ensure that its implementation closely aligns to
OMB's new guidelines.
We have established an Executive Steering Committee that is
chaired by the Under Secretary for Management, Rafael Borras,
to ensure that TASC stays in alignment with the high-priority
business needs and that we have realistic and achievable
project plans. We have right-sized the concept of operations to
a more risk-based approach, and so we are tailoring its initial
applications by component and by need to ensure that it will
succeed. We presented an overview of our plans and progress to
the Financial Systems Advisory Board earlier this month and we
intend to stay consistent with the OMB guidelines that they
have put in place.
Senator Akaka. As DHS has testified, an important part of
integration and cohesion for DHS will be to consolidate the
headquarters at St. Elizabeths. Can you provide an update on
how work at St. Elizabeths is proceeding?
Ms. Lute. I can, Mr. Chairman. We are on time and on
budget, which is the best news anyone can ever give when you
are executing a project of this size and magnitude. Senator
Voinovich mentioned that the creation of DHS was the largest
public sector reorganization, perhaps in history. Certainly,
the building of St. Elizabeths is the largest single public
works project in Washington since the Pentagon.
To date, the Department of Homeland Security and General
Services Administration (GSA) have obligated over $1 billion,
approved a master plan and phase one construction of the Coast
Guard facility, which is underway. All of our interim
milestones and schedule dates are being met. And next, we have
created a plan, and we are finalizing that plan, to reduce our
footprint from over 70 buildings, 50 facilities scattered
throughout the National Capital Region down to under 10 by the
end of fiscal year 2016.
GSA, as you know, has determined that the creation of St.
Elizabeths and the consolidation of the Department there will
save over $600 million over the next 30 years, but as important
as those savings are, we believe also, Mr. Chairman, that this
will improve the interoperability and the integration of
Department operations.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much. My time has expired.
Senator Voinovich.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you for your nice words in terms
of my concern for the current and future of the Department of
Homeland Security. I am hoping to have an opportunity to meet
with your Secretary before I tip my hat, but I would like to
bring to your attention, and Mr. Chairman, this is a little bit
off the subject of this hearing and I will get to that--the
issue of immigration. With regard to the DREAM Act. Many of us
are concerned about agriculture jobs. But I think you may have
a window of opportunity between the election and the end of the
year to perhaps deal with that.
And the two areas that I think need to be underscored are,
first, what you have done to secure the border. I do not think
that has been driven home enough to the American people, and,
of course, you know what is going on in Arizona. I am not going
to get into that. But you have to do that.
As the Ranking Member on the Appropriations Committee
dealing with Homeland Security, we have numbers to show that
there is no way possible without spending tons of money on
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and detention
facilities to deal with the illegal immigrants that are here in
this country. It is something that really needs to be
addressed, and I am suggesting that this is something that you
might put on your list and even talk to the President about.
Second of all, Mr. Chairman, I am probably going to take
all my time with this, I think you are going to get
recommendations out of the Debt Commission that the President
set up that I think is really going to have a dramatic impact
on the resources that are available throughout the government.
I think you need to look at your budget to see where the money
is going and take advantage of this opportunity, either in the
omnibus bill, and we might get one before the end of the year,
or even next year.
But the point I am making to you is, I can show you right
now how you can save a billion dollars in your budget a billion
dollars that you could reallocate to some of the things you
want to do. For example, in the current budget, you are not
getting enough money for management. You need more. You did not
get it. But I can show you that.
And then, also, to take this opportunity to forthrightly
look at things in terms of threat assessment. So much money in
that budget is revenue sharing, and I will never forget after
September 11, 2001, and we formed the Department, I said, we
have to be careful that this does not become some kind of
revenue sharing thing, and I will show you where it has. I
think that you need to get together with the folks there and
come back and stand up and say, here is what we need. Here is
what is relevant and here is what is not relevant, OK.
The other thing is that you are going to have to do that
because there are articles out today that Homeland Security is
out of control, the billions of dollars that are being spent,
and so forth. So the big light is going to shine on the
Department of Homeland Security. And I think your Quadrennial
Homeland Security Review looks at that. But the fact is, there
is an interim period here, October, in which you ought to maybe
be looking at that stuff.
And the last thing is a pain that I have had that I cannot
get information from your management over there, and I do not
know if you know about it, I have tried to get from your
Department, for almost a year, information back on whether or
not you need the Biometric Air Exit program in DHS. And I am
putting a bill in that says it is not necessary because that is
the conclusion that I have gotten from talking to your people.
But I cannot get an answer out of your Secretary, and I
have been trying to get her on the phone today, about whether
or not it is necessary. I put $50 million into the budget to
deal with it, and it was not in your proposal. So my assumption
is you do not think it is necessary. All I am asking is for DHS
to come back with a statement, it is not needed from a cost-
benefit point of view, OK? And we have other things that can
take its place and we do not need it.
What is happening now is that we are going to go back to
the old system where it is going to take 3 percent rejection
for--less than 3 percent--for a country to become part of the
visa waiver program. And if you look at the countries that have
come on through the program, they have absolutely improved the
communication in terms of terrorism and other things between
the United States and others. In fact, it would be wonderful if
we could get the countries that were on it before to reach the
standards that they have risen to.
In addition, from a public diplomacy point of view, it has
been fantastic, the new countries that have come in, in terms
of our relationship with them, and there are a bunch of them
out there right now that are pining away--the Poles, for
example. If we do not get this thing changed, their chances of
coming on board to this program is probably going to take 2 to
3, maybe even 4 years.
But I just want you to know, and I am trying to get her on
the phone, I am just enraged that a member of the U.S. Senate
who has tried to be a good friend of your Department and stand
up for you cannot get a simple answer to a question that I
think you know the answer to, but for some reason no one has
got the guts to make it public. And I need that, because I
think I could get a bill passed during the lame duck session by
Unanimous Consent (UC) if I had the information from your folks
that said, ``You know what? We do not need this. It is too
expensive and we have got something else that can take its
place.''
I will get to the hearing, and I have 48 seconds, but I
will tell you what. I will give it back to the Chairman.
Senator Akaka. There will be a second round.
Senator Voinovich. Yes. Go ahead.
Senator Akaka. Secretary Lute, I want to commend the
Department on its effort to right-size the Federal employee to
contractor mix. I am impressed with the results of this
initiative so far. You testified that you are on track to
eliminate 3,500 contractor positions by the end of 2010, saving
nearly $1 billion in service contracts since 2009.
Does converting these positions to Federal employees help
the Department better accomplish its mission? And do you expect
to extend this initiative in the coming years?
Ms. Lute. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the past, the
Department has had a heavy reliance on contractors. Indeed, it
was, in part, the deliberate staffing strategy of getting the
Department up and running quickly. As late as December 2008, in
fact, the Department was cited for not sufficiently--having
sufficient numbers of contractors in place.
We believe in a balanced workforce, the contractors who
come to work for DHS every day provide valuable services for
us, but we do believe there has to be a right-sizing and we
need to look at a number of factors, including the performance
of inherently governmental functions or closely associated to
inherently governmental functions and other critical functions
which really should be performed by Federal employees. So we
will continue this examination of our workforce until we get it
right.
Senator Akaka. Well, thank you for that. Can you also tell
us what progress has been made in making sure that contractors
are not working on any inherently governmental functions?
Ms. Lute. Mr. Chairman, that is precisely the screening
exercise that we have gone through and prioritized our
conversion to Federal status for those employees, for those
functions.
Senator Akaka. Earlier this year, Madam Secretary, the
Department implemented Management Directive 102 to standardize
acquisition management policies and create a stronger framework
for acquisition decisionmaking. How has MD 102 been effective
to date in improving acquisition decisions, and how does it
affect ongoing troubled projects, such as SBInet?
Ms. Lute. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think as you were
briefed by Under Secretary Borras this morning, we have done a
lot of work to strengthen our acquisition reform, building on
the work that has been done by predecessors in this Department.
A number of the programs that we have currently began life a
number of years ago in advance of these reforms that have been
undertaken over the past several years. But we are determined
to get a handle, as I mentioned, end to end in the acquisition
process, beginning with our requirements and working through
finally to life-cycle cost estimates which are accurate and
reflective of the cost of systems over time and understanding
how the interface of key decisions in the acquisition oversight
process brings us better products.
We are integrating science and technology to a greater
extent. We are instituting acquisition career development
programs. We are strengthening our procurement staffing. We are
having regular portfolio reviews. Over 70 major acquisition
projects have undergone acquisition review boards since 2009.
All of the major tier one and tier two programs have undergone
this review. There are procurement management reviews,
management certification processes, and strategic sourcing
boards that now meet in the areas of IT, for example, to ensure
that our acquisition is on track.
Senator Akaka. The DHS Performance Improvement Officer
falls under the agency's Chief Financial Officer (CFO).
Performance improvement and measures are among GAO's top
concerns, and they are important outside of financial
management, as well. Why is the Performance Officer under the
CFO, and should this position be more prominent within the
Management Directorate?
Ms. Lute. Mr. Chairman, I am taking a close personal
interest in our performance measures. As we mentioned when we
began the QHSR process, there was going to be a three-stage
process: The development of the QHSR itself, a strategic
guiding document; the Bottom-Up Review, which was going to
evaluate--and did--the performance of the Department and the
activities of the Department against those things that we said
were most important to do in the QHSR; and then build the 2012
budget presentation and 2012 to 2016 Future Years Homeland
Security Program (FYHSP) in a way that reflects the priorities
based on the activities of the Department in the strategic
context laid out by the QHSR.
In addition to that, we had some plumbing and wiring of our
own we needed to do. We needed to align our account structure
so that we could compare personnel costs and cost components.
It is hard to talk about an integrated department if we do not
count personnel or acquisition and investment or O and M costs
in the same way, and we have realigned that with OMB's help and
the help of Congress.
In addition, we have reevaluated every single performance
measure guiding the Department, every single one, and we have
done that--we have looked at all 180-odd existing performance
measures and we have recast them in ways that are plain
language indicators of what the value proposition is in the
Department for the money that is being allocated, and we think
this will be a much more sensibilized approach to performance
metrics.
So it does not matter where this function lies in the
Department, Mr. Chairman. I am going to keep my eye on it.
Senator Akaka. Thank you for taking a personal interest in
that. Senator Voinovich.
Senator Voinovich. During last year's hearing on DHS
management, there seemed to be a difference of opinion between
DHS and GAO as to what needed to be done for transformation and
implementation to be removed from GAO's High-Risk List. Our
second witness is going to be Cathy Berrick. I was disappointed
to see that in your written statement, there is no explicit
discussion of efforts to have DHS transformation and
implementation removed from GAO's High-Risk List, which makes
me wonder whether or not you are taking it seriously.
The problem last year was that they did not agree on what
needed to be done, and then the next thing was that they did
not agree on the metrics to determine whether or not they did
it or not. And one of the things I am going to try to ferret
out at this hearing today is how close has your Department
worked with GAO to agree on things that are necessary to get
you off the High-Risk List and also to agree on the measures
that will be taken to determine whether or not you have, in
fact, performed them.
It harks back to the meeting with Mr. Borras this morning.
He has these nice charts and it looks really good--in fact, I
asked him to give it to you, and he apparently did not----
Ms. Lute. No, sir, we brought it.
Senator Voinovich. You have it here?
Ms. Lute. Yes, sir.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The charts referenced by Senator Voinovich appear in the
Appendix on page 60.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Voinovich. Thanks very much. The issue to me is,
has GAO looked at it? What do they think of it? And have you
agreed on what the measurement would be? Because a lot of it
looks like--it is the recognition, and I am not going to go
into the deficiencies that they found. You know and I know that
you have a long way to go in a lot of these areas. Another
issue that I am concerned about is when they did that survey of
your workers, the low morale that still exists over there in
your Department. I am concerned about that.
How much input has GAO had in this in terms of is this the
way to get it done, and have you agreed upon the metrics?
Ms. Lute. So, Mr. Chairman, certainly I will let GAO speak
for themselves, but from my perspective, I will say the
following. I have been running things for a long time in my
life, different large extended operating organizations of
expansive size. You do not do management effectively without a
healthy relationship with your audit function, and I think we
have a healthy relationship with GAO. We do not always agree on
everything.
But we have sat down with them. I have sat down with them
personally with my senior staff and with the seniors at GAO and
I would say that we share a commitment to getting this right.
We share a commitment to clarity and to understanding exactly
what this Department has to do to get off the High-Risk List in
all areas. And so let me assure you, Senator, that on the issue
of implementing and transforming the Department, we are
committed to taking ourselves off the list.
We believe that we have a better sense now, and as we go
through carefully the very detailed report that GAO has just
given us on those measures that we should take in each of these
areas--leadership commitment, resources, independent
validation, demonstrated progress over time, action planning,
and metrics--that these are areas that we understand and we can
operationalize and we have a healthy state of dialogue that if
there is ambiguity, we can get it clarified so we know what we
need to do.
What Under Secretary Borras outlined for you this morning
and what is in part here is a more effective governance tool
for the acquisition process end to end, as we spoke about, to
build on what we think is an already strengthened system in
order to get to best practice.
Senator Voinovich. Well, as I said, it would give me
comfort to know that they have had a role of looking at this
and have signed off and said, ``That is a way to get the job
done,'' and then you would agree on, well, let us agree on
whether we are getting it done, the progress that we are
making, because I think that would go a long way to move you
off the list and at least there is to be an understanding.
And I also think that, in my experience, if you have
disagreements, you ought to let us know about it. In other
words, one of the things I talked to Mr. Borras about, there
may be some of your entities that are really working by
themselves and do not want to be part of the integrated system
for financial management, for example. Maybe they should not be
involved in this, and we keep talking, you have to get it all
together. Well, maybe you can come back and say, ``You know
what? There are a couple of areas here where we do not need to
do that. They are already in good shape and let us take the
ones that are remaining and we will do it with them because
they are okay.'' I mean, that kind of candor, I think, is
really important.
And the last thing is the resources that you need to get
the job done. The problem is it will always get shortchanged,
and it just drives me crazy that more departments do not really
stand up and start raising all kinds of you know what when we
do not give you the resources that you need to get the job
done, particularly in management. I mean, there seems to be a
lack of appreciation in this body for management and the
importance of what you say, having the right people with the
right knowledge and skills at the right time, having given them
the tools. And I think you ought to stand up and fight and just
do not get rolled over. Just make a big deal out of it. Get the
President involved. If I am going to get the job done, I have
to have the tools in those departments to get the job done.
So you are telling me that GAO has looked at that and
understands it and thinks it can get the job done?
Ms. Lute. Sir, as much as I would like to put words in
GAO's mouth, I certainly would let them speak for themselves.
What I can tell you is that we have had a continuing dialogue.
It has been an honest dialogue. We are determined to know and
to do what it takes to get off the High-Risk List. We are
determined to know and do what it takes to have DHS be among
the best places to work in the public sector.
Our most important resource is our people, and as you have
heard from our Human Capital Officer, we are working on a
number of programs, leadership programs, workplace programs,
resilience programs for our workforce, designed both to give
the workers the tools they need to add value and to let them
know how much they are valued by us.
GAO is an important partner for us. We could not do our
work without them.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Akaka. Thank you. Thank you very much, Senator
Voinovich.
Again, I want to thank you, Secretary Lute, for appearing
before us today and for your responses as well as your
statement. I look forward to working with you on these concerns
that we have and look forward to also working with the staff of
DHS, as well. Thank you very much.
And now I would like to call our second panel to come
forward, Ms. Cathleen Berrick of the Government Accountability
Office.
It is the custom of this Subcommittee to swear all
witnesses in, so please stand and raise your right hand.
Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give this
Subcommittee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth, so help you God?
Ms. Berrick. I do.
Senator Akaka. Thank you. Let the record show that the
witness answered in the affirmative.
Although your remarks are limited to 5 minutes, your full
statement will be included in the record. Will you please
proceed with your statement.
TESTIMONY OF CATHLEEN A. BERRICK,\1\ MANAGING DIRECTOR,
HOMELAND SECURITY AND JUSTICE ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT
ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Ms. Berrick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Voinovich and Members of the Subcommittee. Thanks for inviting
me to appear today to discuss the status of the integration and
transformation of DHS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Berrick appears in the Appendix
on page 33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shortly after the creation of DHS, as you are aware, GAO
designated its implementation and transformation as high risk,
in large part because DHS had to transform 22 agencies with
their own management challenges into one department and the
enormity of that effort. We also recognized that DHS faced
significant challenges in building its management capacity
while at the same time implementing its critical homeland
security and other missions. DHS has remained on our High-Risk
List since.
My statement today addresses the challenges DHS faces in
acquisition, information technology, financial management, and
human capital management; DHS's progress in integrating its
management functions within and across the Department; and the
Department's progress in addressing the issues that have
contributed to GAO's high-risk designation.
DHS has made some important progress in strengthening its
management functions, but needs to take additional action and
demonstrate progress in addressing some longstanding issues
within its management areas. Key among these actions is
executing plans that they have established and demonstrating
results across all of these areas.
For example, our work has identified significant
shortcomings in DHS's ability to manage an expanding portfolio
of complex acquisitions worth billions of dollars. DHS has
revised its acquisition review process to include more detailed
guidance and has clarified roles and authorities among other
improvements, but DHS has not effectively carried out all of
its policies. Our recent work found that over half of the major
acquisition programs we reviewed awarded contracts without
Department approval of documents essential to planning
acquisitions and setting requirements. In addition most of
these programs we reviewed had cost, schedule, and performance
shortfalls.
With respect to financial management, as you are aware, the
Department has faced challenges in modernizing and integrating
its financial management systems and has not yet implemented a
consolidated Department-wide system, although it has plans to
do that. Since DHS's creation, the independent auditors have
been unable to express an opinion on its limited scope audit of
DHS's balance sheets.
In an effort to integrate its management functions across
DHS, the Department has put in place a number of common
policies and procedures within individual management areas to
help vertically integrate the Department with the components.
However, DHS has placed less emphasis on integrating
horizontally across the Department to bring its management
functions together for common processes and systems.
DHS has also developed a plan to integrate its management
functions, which we think is a step in the right direction and
has a lot of positive aspects. However, the plan lacks details
on how the initiatives cited will get DHS to the end state of
management integration and what that end state is. The plan
also does not address how the Department will measure its
performance in its integration efforts or what the resource
needs are and whether they will be available to follow through
with these initiatives.
In order to help DHS address the challenges that have
contributed to the high-risk designation, we have identified
and worked with DHS over the past year and earlier on the
specific actions we believe they need to take to improve in
these areas. Key among these actions is demonstrating
measurable, sustainable progress and strengthening its
management functions, such as delivering acquisition programs
within established cost schedule and performance thresholds. We
have worked with the Department over the years to address these
issues and will continue to do that moving forward.
Senator Voinovich and Senator Akaka, thank you very much
for inviting GAO here today and thank you for your leadership
on these very important issues and support for GAO's work.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Ms. Berrick.
An important aspect of removing an issue from the High-Risk
List is having processes in place to make sure the agency will
not revert back to its old ways after it has been removed.
While I understand DHS transformation will likely not come off
the High-Risk List for 2011, do you believe that DHS is laying
the groundwork to sustain management progress in the future?
Ms. Berrick. Thank you, Senator. I do think DHS is laying
the groundwork. If you look across all of the management
functions, and acquisition is a good example, they do have good
plans in place in a number of these areas. And while some of
the plans and strategies can be improved, what we found in
acquisition and IT management and other areas is that the key
is implementing these plans and demonstrating progress and
showing that it is sustainable and repeatable.
So in addressing the Hig-Risk List and looking at DHS's
progress, in addition to the plans which we will continue to
provide feedback to them on, we will be watching the
implementation of those plans and the ability of DHS to execute
and to demonstrate progress in each of their management areas.
Senator Akaka. At past hearings, GAO has emphasized the
need for strong performance measures in order to integrate and
transform the Department. In your opinion, has DHS developed
sound performance measures?
Ms. Berrick. I think DHS has made some key improvements in
their performance measures, and this is an area where GAO and
DHS have worked together over the past few years, where GAO
would provide input on DHS's Government Performance and Results
Act (GPRA) performance measures, and based on that input, DHS
has made some significant changes in their measures, in our
view, that have significantly improved the measures. For
example, they have added about 90 new measures since we began
coordinating with them. They have retired about 40 measures
that were not proving to provide them the information that they
needed. And they also provided better descriptions in their
public reporting of about 100 measures based on our dialogue.
DHS is continuing to work to strengthen their measures, and
GAO is continuing to work with them. Some of the changes that
they are trying to make will be longer-term and it require
collecting additional data, so it will take time.
One piece of input that we provided to DHS was with respect
to measures for integrating the Department. Although DHS added
a lot of new measures within each of their management
functions, there were not measures specific to management
integration, and so that is some feedback that we have provided
to DHS and would like to see those measures as we move forward
in assessing this high-risk area.
Senator Akaka. DHS is reportedly ready to move forward with
awarding a contract for DHS's financial management system known
as TASC. However, in the past, GAO has cautioned that DHS must
have rigorous oversight in place before moving forward with the
system consolidation. Do you believe DHS has done enough
planning to execute TASC effectively?
Ms. Berrick. GAO issued a report earlier this year on DHS's
status with respect to TASC, and essentially what we found,
similar to your comments, was that we felt there was an over-
reliance on contractors and there was not adequate oversight.
The contractors were developing all of the key acquisition
documents for TASC, including the requirements and the concept
of operations, rather than the government developing those
documents. And we also reported that we thought DHS could do
more work to prepare themselves for awarding the TASC contract,
for example, developing detailed implementation and migration
plans and doing an inventory of the business processes that
needed to be realigned once the contract was awarded. We issued
that report about 6 months ago. We have not done updated work,
but that is something that we will be looking at as we update
our work for the next high-risk designation in January. But I
do not have an update right now on the current status of those
efforts.
Senator Akaka. Do you think that a single comprehensive
strategic plan is necessary?
Ms. Berrick. I think it is--with respect to the hig-risk
designation, I think it is very important to have a strategy
for how the Department is going to address the high-risk
designation. And actually, GAO has five general criteria when
we look at any high-risk area, which is leadership commitment,
the capacity to address the issues in terms of people and other
resources, a corrective action plan or a strategy for
addressing the high-risk designation, the ability to
independently monitor and measure progress in addressing the
designation, and then the last criteria is measuring results.
So we think that having a plan for addressing the overall
designation and also for making specific improvements within
each of the management areas is very important and it is
something that we will be continuing to look at with DHS. Now,
DHS does have a strategy for addressing the high-risk
designation that we think is a good start, and we have provided
additional feedback and they are in the process of revising
that strategy. So it is certainly something we will review for
the high-risk update in January.
Senator Akaka. This morning, Senator Voinovich and I met
with Under Secretary Borras and he briefed us on what they have
been doing in this area. The placards that were displayed here
with the first panel, those placards that showed how they are
moving on that. I just want to tell you that I was impressed
with it and look forward to continuing to work with them. So I
really appreciate that. Senator Voinovich.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Building on that, have you ever seen that chart before?
Ms. Berrick. We have seen a different version of that
chart. We were briefed that DHS is making an improvement to
their original management integration strategy through the
acquisition reform component and we have been briefed
conceptually on how that is going to work, although we have not
seen the details yet. Our view of that is we think that there
are a lot of good measures and controls in that strategy. It is
going to add more rigor to the acquisition process at both the
front end with requirements definition and also at the back end
with measuring cost schedule and performance thresholds, both
of which are things we have recommended that DHS do.
So we think it is a good framework. We think the key is
going to be, again, in the implementation and demonstrating on
a repeatable basis that DHS can implement this policy for their
major programs and meet established cost schedule and
performance thresholds.
One of the questions we had for DHS that we will have
further conversation with them about is what is the end state
of management integration. DHS has communicated to us that they
are going to put their initial focus on acquisition reform and
then they will have additional updates to the management
integration strategy, which we were encouraged to hear because
we think integration is going to cover more than just that.
At the same time, we understand why DHS is putting their
initial focus on acquisition, given the significant dollar
amount tied to it. But we will continue to monitor DHS's
modifications to the plan, and there are additional efforts
both in acquisition and other areas.
Senator Voinovich. When we talked to Mr. Borras this
morning, I indicated to him that it would be good if you would
look at it and comment on whether you think it makes sense in
order to deal with the acquisition problem. Last year, I
remember during the hearing that there was some real
disagreement. First of all, we do not agree with what it is
that we have to do to get off the High-Risk List, and second of
all, we do not agree on metrics, and I think I had a meeting in
my office about that with some folks, can you guys get your act
together and so forth.
I really think it is important that you get together with
DHS, that you look at these charts, is this the way it is going
to get done, you agree that is what they should do, how do you
intend to measure the implementation in terms of performance
and metrics, and you used the word ``repetitive,'' that it is
just not a one-shot deal, that it is going to occur. I think
that would help greatly, because then a year from now you can
all look at it and say, ``We have made it--here is specifically
what we did.'' We had a little disagreement over here, but we
are moving down the road and we agree on it.
The other thing is that you mentioned something about
resources. I should have known the answer to this a long time
ago, but do you think that the Department of Homeland Security
has the resources to get the job done that we have asked them
to get done?
Ms. Berrick. Well, I will answer in the context of DHS's
internal plans, and specifically, DHS has a lot of corrective
action plans and strategies to improve all of its management
functions, and if you look through these plans, in almost every
one, the limitation cited by DHS is resources. So we certainly
think it is an issue for the Department. They have identified
that in their own planning documents. And, of course, resources
is one criteria that GAO looks at in making decisions about the
high-risk designation, because if agencies do not have the
resources, they are going to be very limited in what they can
do.
So we are going to continue to look at that and we will be
asking DHS questions, specific questions in acquisition and
other areas about whether or not they are going to be able to
implement this and when, based on the resources that they have
available to them.
Senator Voinovich. OK. The human capital part of this is a
big deal in terms of having the folks that they need, because I
think that is, from the point of view of appropriations--you
probably heard when I asked the question, ``If we do not give
you the resources to get the job done, how can you do it? '' We
just keep loading some of these agencies up with more and more
and more and more, and quite frankly in many instances they do
not have enough resources to do the job that we have given
them, so we just add on to it. That would be a wonderful thing
that GAO could do for appropriations.
In terms of the impact that this has on the public and some
of these things that we are talking about, do you have any
instances where, because we have not had these things in place,
it has cost us a ton of money?
Ms. Berrick. I think there is a significant impact on the
mission side of DHS. If you look at major programs that they
have tried to deploy, and you have talked about one of them,
SBInet is a perfect example. The Transportation Security
Administration's (TSA) Secure Flight program is another
example. US-VISIT is another example, where DHS set out to
develop a program to satisfy an important mission need, but
because of the way that program was managed, it was not meeting
performance expectations. They were not meeting cost and
schedule expectations. And they were either delayed or were
never deployed to the field. So I think there is a direct
correlation between how well the Department is managed and how
they can implement these management functions with how
successful they are in implementing their missions.
Senator Voinovich. You heard the question I asked Ms. Lute
about the issue of the role of the Department of Homeland
Security and looking at the budget in terms of some of the
dollars that are being allocated for stuff that, frankly, from
my point of view, just is not relevant to the mission.
Specifically, I did not mention it to her, but the money for
fire--the firefighter grants, I mean, they have not spent all
of the money out of the 2009 budget. They have not spent the
money in 2010 and they are asking for about $1 billion more for
fire grants, and that is fine. Senator Akaka and I sent a press
release out and we helped Hawaii get a fire engine. But you
just have to ask yourself, what has that got to do with the
role of the Department? Is this just revenue sharing?
And then, also, the threat assessment. If you look at the
list of cities that have come on, you say to yourself, how did
they ever get on this list? Was it because Members of the
Congress, the Senate, lobbied them to add some of these cities?
Do you look at any of that stuff to say, this just does not fit
in with the mission of the Department?
Ms. Berrick. We do look at those sorts of things. There are
a couple of means. One is, every year, we do what we call a
budget justification review of the Department of Homeland
Security. We do this work for the Appropriations Committee and
we will look at specific programs and prepare a two-page
product that basically describes the program, what the budget
request is, and whether we think there are questions about this
request and whether it should be reduced or rescinded or
whether Congress needs to look at this. And so every year, we
send up about 15 to 20 sheets that list specific programs and
operations, and we can certainly share these sheets with you if
this is something you would be interested in.
Second, in the pay-as-you-go legislation, GAO was mandated
to look across government at areas of duplication, overlap, and
fragmentation, and general cost saving opportunities, and
report yearly, and our first report is due in February 2011, on
programs that could be reduced or modified to save funds. And
there are a number of DHS programs that we are looking at that
we will be reporting out on in this February report.
You mentioned grants. Grants is an area that we will be
talking about. There are lots of Homeland Security grants that
have overlap. We have cited and the Inspector General (IG) has
cited significant problems in grant management, overseeing the
grants. You mentioned a lot of States being cited as having
significant vulnerabilities in getting grants. Some grants
vulnerability is held constant. The Urban Areas Security
Initiative (UASI) grants are that way. So every State is
considered to have an equal vulnerability. So grants is a big
area.
Another area is research and development, the operations of
science and technology and how that is being managed. And there
are also some specific programs, and just to give you an
example, TSA has a behavior detection program where they have
specially trained screeners in airports looking for suspicious
behavior. We have done work that has shown that the science
behind that program has not been validated and results have not
been proven, yet TSA is requesting significant increases in
that program. So, for example, that is one program that we will
be talking about in both our budget reviews as well as the
mandate that we will be reporting out in February.
Senator Voinovich. Well, I would like to get in touch with
you tomorrow or in the next couple of days and talk about that,
because I think that the folks that would be interested in this
also are the ones charged with figuring out how do we deal with
the debt and how do we balance budgets. I think that they could
probably benefit a great deal from the information that you
folks have gathered, and also the Congress, because we are
going to have a real challenge. From a point of view of looking
at an agency from the outside, an objective point of view, it
seems to me that you have done that and I want to find out more
about it.
Ms. Berrick. Right. I will be happy to do that.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Akaka. Thank you, Senator Voinovich.
Ms. Berrick, earlier this year, the Under Secretary for
Management issued Management Directive 102, which aims to
strengthen acquisition management policies across the
Department. High-profile acquisitions such as Deepwater and
SBInet, to name a few, have shown the need for improvement in
this area. Do you believe that MD 102 goes far enough to
address weaknesses in the Department's acquisition management?
Ms. Berrick. We think, generally, the directive is a
significant improvement over the prior policy and generally is
what we call knowledge-based, which is when we look at
acquisition policy, we look at it for specific things, and that
directive is consistent with it. Now, for managing IT
investments, we think it needs to go a little bit further and
we have talked to DHS about that and letting them know
specifically what we think they need to do with respect to IT
investments. But generally speaking, for regular acquisitions,
we think the directive is good.
The issue has really been execution. Even DHS's prior
acquisition directive, there were a lot of good aspects to it,
but DHS was not executing that directive as it was designed.
For example, under the current acquisition directive, we looked
at programs and most of them had not gone through the
Acquisition Review Board process. Most of them did not have
Department approved requirements, or Department approved
acquisition baselines as they were required to by the
directive. Sometimes programs would go through the Acquisition
Review Board, but the feedback from the board and the
recommendations from the board were not followed up on. So the
problems that the Board identified were not addressed.
So we really think in the area of acquisition that the key
is implementing the program that they have in place, and the
changes that DHS has talked about, we think that will further
strengthen their directive and should help them deliver
acquisitions on time, within budget, and performance
thresholds, if implemented, as designed.
Senator Akaka. Ms. Berrick, in past years, we had heard
repeatedly that GAO ran into problems with DHS providing access
to information and to DHS officials when GAO was carrying out
investigations and audits. Can you update the Subcommittee on
current relations between DHS and GAO?
Ms. Berrick. Thank you. GAO has had difficulty historically
doing our work at Department of Homeland Security, and it was
mainly due to the protocols that they had in place which
required us to work through a series of liaisons and lawyers to
get access to the people we needed to talk to and documents we
needed.
We are very happy to say that after about a year and a half
of dialogue with DHS, the Department has issued a revised
directive and instruction for working with GAO, and we provided
significant input into the development of that protocol and its
direction. It was issued in June of this year. We are very
happy with the content in that protocol and instruction, and we
think that if it is implemented as it is designed, it is going
to result in significant improvements in our access to the
Department. So we are very grateful that is in place. Now, it
is the very early stages of that, so we will be monitoring to
ensure that it is implemented as it is designed and DHS is
doing the same.
With respect to the relationship generally, I think we have
a good relationship. We meet frequently. There is a lot of
communication between GAO and DHS, not only in specific areas
like performance measures and the management areas, but just
generally at senior levels of the Department and senior levels
of GAO. So we think we have come a very long way in our
relationship.
Senator Akaka. Thank you for that response.
Senator Voinovich, any further questions?
Senator Voinovich. As a gift to me, before I leave, I would
like you to get in touch with the Department of Homeland
Security and Mr. Borras or whoever it is and I would like you
to take the charts and look at it and tell me what you think of
it, and second of all, what you and the Department think would
be the way you would measure whether or not they were making
progress in regard to those charts.
Ms. Berrick. I will be happy to do that. I think one of the
discussions we will need to have with DHS is after acquisition
reform, what additional efforts do they plan to achieve
management integration and what is their vision for the end
state of integration. So we can talk about that, as well, and
we would be happy to come back and brief you on that.
Senator Voinovich. Yes. If they would just take that little
piece and do it and just say, ``Yes, we think this is good, or
if you have got to change, work it out and then come back.''
And then also say, and we agree that the way we will measure
whether we get it done is the following, OK?
Ms. Berrick. OK.
Senator Voinovich. How long did we take to get the
``management integration plan''? It took forever. And we have
the plan now, do we not? Do you agree with the plan that they
came back with? Who developed that plan? Elaine Duke worked on
that plan, but that came back and they finally got it. And you
agree that what they have come back with is a good plan in
terms of integration.
Ms. Berrick. The feedback we gave them was that we thought
it was a good start, but it was not clear from looking at the
plan, again, what the end state was of management integration.
There were a lot of tactical programs listed in the plan of
things that they would do, such as consolidating the
headquarters facility. GAO has criteria that we use when we
look at these types of plans and they were generally meeting
that criteria within the various programs that they have
listed. But it did not seem complete in our opinion in terms of
how together these initiatives are going to address management
integration. So we provided that feedback.
Now DHS has told us that they view that plan as a first
step and they have said that they agree with most of the input
that we provided, and so they are going to make enhancements to
it, and phase one of the enhancements is this acquisition. So
we think they are moving in the right direction. We think they
need to do more with the plan, which they, again, they said
they would do through increments. So we will need to have
dialogue with them on what these increments are to ensure we
have a good understanding of what their overall strategy is.
Senator Voinovich. Thanks.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Voinovich.
Again, I want to say thanks to you, Ms. Berrick, for your
responses. It has been valuable and it will be valuable to our
work here in the U.S. Senate. I want to thank you and the other
witness for appearing here today.
As we have discussed for years, a strong focus on
management at DHS is vital to integrating the Department, but
also for our national security. More work is needed to get this
issue off the High-Risk List, and I hope DHS and GAO will
continue to work toward that goal. While this is likely Senator
Voinovich's last hearing on this subject, this Subcommittee
will continue to build on the good work that he has done and we
have done together and keep a close watch on DHS management.
Senator Voinovich, do you have any final remarks for this
hearing?
Senator Voinovich. I would just like to say, I really have
appreciated the wonderful relationship our office has had with
GAO over the years. I think you really do a good job and you
are making a difference for our country. One of the things that
tickles me is that on the list of agencies where people seem to
be happy, you are right at the top. That makes me feel very
good, because I know several years ago, you needed some more
flexibilities, and Senator Akaka and I worked on them. So thank
you for your work and pass the word on that the Senator from
Ohio is really happy with the wonderful relationship he has
had. There are a couple of people I am going to call before I
leave, and one of them is Gene, your Acting Comptroller
General. Thank you.
Ms. Berrick. Thank you very much, and GAO feels the same.
We appreciate all of the support that both of you have had on
these important issues and support of GAO's work and using our
work and analysis to help your oversight efforts. So thank you
very much.
Senator Voinovich. And I am going to be in touch with you
about that other matter, OK?
Ms. Berrick. Very good.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
Ms. Berrick. Thank you.
Senator Akaka. I also want to thank Senator Voinovich's
staff and my staff for working so well together, and also with
your staff, as well. This has really helped us in our work here
in the U.S. Senate.
The hearing record will be open for 2 weeks for additional
statements or questions other Members may have pertaining to
the hearing.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:55 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]