[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 149 (Tuesday, November 27, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H6434-H6437]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DHS ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2012
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 5913) to create an independent advisory panel to
comprehensively assess the management structure and capabilities
related to the Department of Homeland Security and make recommendations
to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the management of the
Department, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 5913
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``DHS Accountability Act of
2012''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that the Subcommittee on Oversight,
Investigations, and Management of the Committee on Homeland
Security of the House of Representatives held a series of
four hearings related to the management of the Department of
Homeland Security. The key findings from such hearings were
the following:
(1) The Department of Homeland Security has not prioritized
the missions outlined in its key strategic planning
documents. This lack of prioritization may hinder the
Department's efforts to effectively manage risks to the
United States. Since 2003, the Government Accountability
Office designated the transformation of the Department as
high risk because the Department had to transform 22
agencies--several with major management challenges--into one
department, and failure to effectively address the
Department's management and mission risks could have serious
consequences to United States national and economic security.
The Government Accountability Office continues to designate
the transformation of the Department as high risk.
(2) The Department has considerable work ahead to achieve
actions and outcomes critical to addressing persistent
management challenges. For example, a significant number of
acquisition programs proceeded without component or
departmental approval of essential planning documents. These
reviews are important to ensure the success of an acquisition
program. The Department also continues to face challenges
implementing key human capital initiatives. Integrating
financial data essential to effectively managing the
Department also remains a challenge.
(3) Areas of duplicative effort have also been identified
within the Department. For example, some Federal Government
agencies are paying fees to the Department's Federal
Protective Service for facility risk assessments that are not
being performed, while at the same time performing their own
risk assessments. The Department also lacks robust
acquisition practices in place to position programs for
success. Federal Government auditors questioned U.S. Customs
and Border Protection's plan to secure the Arizona border
because the agency could not justify the specific types,
quantities, cost, and deployment locations of its
surveillance technologies.
(4) Investigators continue to identify cases of employee
corruption within the Department. Investigations by the
Department's Inspector General led to over 400 arrests of
employees in 2011. Examples include Border Patrol agents
accepting bribes, thefts by airport screeners, and
immigration officers complicit in fraud. In addition, overall
employee morale in the Department remains one of the lowest
in the Federal Government.
SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT.
There is established in the legislative branch an
independent advisory panel to--
(1) comprehensively assess the management structure and
capabilities related to the Department of Homeland Security;
and
(2) make recommendations to improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of the management of the Department.
SEC. 4. MEMBERSHIP.
(a) In General.--The independent advisory panel (in this
Act referred to as the ``Panel'') established under section 3
shall be composed of eight members as follows:
(1) Two members shall be appointed by the Speaker of the
House of Representatives, in coordination with the Chairman
of the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of
Representatives. Only one of such members may be from the
same political party as the Speaker of the House of
Representatives.
(2) Two members shall be appointed by the majority leader
of the Senate, in coordination with the Chairman of the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of
the Senate. Only one of such members may be from the same
political party as the majority leader of the Senate.
(3) One member shall be appointed by the minority leader of
the House of Representatives, in coordination with the
Ranking Minority Member of the Committee on Homeland Security
of the House of Representatives.
(4) One member shall be appointed by the minority leader of
the Senate, in coordination with the Ranking Minority Member
of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs of the Senate.
(5) Two members shall be appointed by the President, in
consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security. Only
one of such members may be from the same political party as
the President.
(b) Prohibition.--Except as provided in subsection (a),
members of the Panel may not be current appointees of the
President's Administration or Members of Congress, in order
to ensure objectivity of the Panel's assessments.
(c) Deadline for Appointments.--All appointments to the
Panel shall be made not later than 90 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
(d) Co-Chairmen.--The Panel shall have two co-chairmen, as
follows:
(1) A co-chairman who shall be a member of the Panel
designated by the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
(2) A co-chairman who shall be a member of the Panel
designated by the majority leader of the Senate.
(e) Vacancy.--In the event of a vacancy on the Panel, the
individual appointed to fill the vacant seat shall be--
(1) subject to paragraph (2), appointed by the same officer
(or the officer's successor) who made the appointment to the
seat when the Panel was first established; or
(2) if the officer's successor is of a party other than the
party of the officer who made the initial appointment when
the Panel was first established, chosen in consultation with
the senior officers of the House of Representatives and the
Senate of the party which is the party of the officer who
made such initial appointment.
(f) Government Employees.--Members of the Panel who are
officers or employees of the Federal Government shall serve
without additional pay (or benefits in the nature of
compensation) for service as a member of the Panel.
(g) Initial Meeting.--The Panel shall meet and begin the
operations of the Panel not later than 60 days after the
appointment of all Panel members under subsection (a).
SEC. 5. DUTIES.
(a) In General.--The Panel shall assess the current
management structure and capabilities of the Department of
Homeland Security, including examining the following:
[[Page H6435]]
(1) The efficiency and effectiveness of the management
structure and capabilities, including the policies,
practices, and procedures, of the Department of Homeland
Security and its component agencies in carrying out the
management functions, such as program acquisition, financial
management, information technology, human capital issues,
performance measurement, and risk management efforts, related
to homeland security.
(2) The extent to which unnecessary duplication exists in
such management structure and capabilities, and how, if at
all, such duplication negatively affects the mission of
protecting the United States.
(3) The extent to which management of key homeland security
missions is centralized under the Department.
(4) Options, as appropriate, to reduce or eliminate harmful
waste and duplication of effort in the Department.
(5) Measures to evaluate the Department's progress in
reducing and eliminating waste and duplication from its
management structure and capabilities.
(b) Additional Considerations.--In carrying out its duties,
the Panel should consult and leverage the work performed and
recommendations made by the Government Accountability Office
on the management structure and capabilities of the
Department of Homeland Security, in particular with respect
to the issues identified under subsection (a).
SEC. 6. POWERS AND AUTHORITIES.
(a) Hearings and Evidence.--
(1) In general.--The Panel or, on the authority of the
Panel, any portion thereof, may, for the purpose of carrying
out this section--
(A) hold such hearings and sit and act at such times and
places, take such testimony, receive such evidence,
administer such oaths (provided that the quorum for a hearing
shall be two members of the Panel); and
(B) subject to subsection (b), require by subpoena or
otherwise provide for the attendance and testimony of such
witnesses and the production of such books, records,
correspondence, memoranda, papers, and documents, as the
Panel, or such portion thereof, may determine advisable.
(2) Open to the public.--Hearings and other activities
conducted under paragraph (1) shall be open to the public
unless the Panel, or, on the authority of the Panel, any
portion thereof, determines that such is not appropriate,
including for reasons relating to the disclosure of
information or material regarding the national security
interests of the United States or the disclosure of sensitive
law enforcement data.
(b) Subpoenas.--
(1) Issuance.--
(A) In general.--A subpoena may be issued under this
subsection only--
(i) by the two co-chairmen; or
(ii) by the affirmative recorded vote of six members of the
Panel.
(B) Signature.--Subpoenas issued under this subsection may
be--
(i) issued under the signature of the two co-chairmen or
any member designated by a majority of the Panel; and
(ii) served by any person designated by the two co-chairmen
or by any member designated by a majority of the Panel.
(2) Enforcement.--
(A) In general.--In the case of contumacy or failure to
obey a subpoena issued under this subsection, the United
States district court for the judicial district in which the
subpoenaed person resides, is served, or may be found, or
where the subpoena is returnable, may issue an order
requiring such person to produce documentary or other
evidence. Any failure to obey the order of the court may be
punished by the court as contempt of that court.
(B) Additional enforcement.--In the case of any failure of
any witness to comply with any subpoena, the Panel may, by
majority vote, certify a statement of fact constituting such
failure to the appropriate United States attorney, who may
bring the matter before a grand jury for its action, under
the same statutory authority and procedures as if the United
States attorney had received a certification under sections
102 through 104 of the Revised Statutes of the United States
(2 U.S.C. 192 through 194).
(c) Personnel.--
(1) In general.--The Panel shall have the authorities
provided in section 3161 of title 5, United States Code, and
shall be subject to the conditions specified in such section,
except to the extent that such conditions would be
inconsistent with the requirements of this section.
(2) Compensation.--The co-chairmen, in accordance with
rules agreed upon by the Panel, may appoint and fix the
compensation of a staff director and such other personnel as
may be necessary to enable the Panel to carry out its
functions, without regard to the provisions of title 5,
United States Code, governing appointments in the competitive
service, and without regard to the provisions of chapter 51
and subchapter III of chapter 53 of such title relating to
classification and General Schedule pay rates, except that no
rate of pay fixed under this paragraph may exceed the
equivalent of that payable for a position at level V of the
Executive Schedule under section 5316 of title 5, United
States Code.
(3) Detailees.--Any employee of the Federal Government may
be detailed to the Panel without reimbursement from the
Panel, and such detailee shall retain the rights, status, and
privileges of the employee's regular employment without
interruption.
(4) Expert and consultant services.--The Panel is
authorized to procure the services of experts and consultants
in accordance with section 3109 of title 5, United States
Code, but at rates not to exceed the daily rate paid a person
occupying a position at level IV of the Executive Schedule
under section 5315 of title 5, United States Code.
(5) Volunteer services.--Notwithstanding section 1342 of
title 31, United States Code, the Panel may accept and use
voluntary and uncompensated services as the Panel determines
necessary.
(d) Security Clearances.--The appropriate departments or
agencies of the Federal Government shall cooperate with the
Panel in expeditiously providing to the Panel members and
staff appropriate security clearances to the extent possible
pursuant to existing procedures and requirements, except that
no person shall be provided with access to classified
information under this section without the appropriate
security clearances.
(e) Contracting.--The Panel may, to such extent and in such
amounts as are provided in appropriation Acts, enter into
contracts to enable the Panel to carry out its duties under
this Act.
(f) Postal Services.--The Panel may use the United States
mails in the same manner and under the same conditions as
departments and agencies of the United States.
(g) Support Services.--Upon request of the Panel, the
Administrator of General Services shall provide the Panel, on
a reimbursable basis, with the administrative support
services necessary for the Panel to carry out its duties
under this Act. Such administrative services may include
human resource management, budget, leasing, accounting, and
payroll services.
(h) Rules of Procedure.--The Panel may establish rules for
the conduct of the Panel's business, if such rules are not
inconsistent with this Act or other applicable law.
(i) Nonapplicability of the Federal Advisory Committee
Act.--The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.)
shall not apply to the Panel.
(j) Termination.--The Panel shall terminate on the date
that is 60 days after the date of the submission of its final
report.
SEC. 7. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
(a) Interim Report.--Not later than one year after the date
of the appointment of all the members of the Panel, the Panel
shall submit to the Committee on Homeland Security of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate an interim
report, including the results and findings of the assessment
and examination carried out in accordance with section 5.
(b) Other Reports and Briefings.--The Panel may from time
to time submit to the committees specified in subsection (a)
such other reports and briefings relating to the assessment
and examination carried out in accordance with section 5 as
the Panel considers appropriate. Such committees may request
information on the Panel's progress as it conducts its work.
(c) Final Report.--Not later than two years after the date
of the appointment of all the members of the Panel, the Panel
shall submit to the committees specified in subsection (a) a
final report on the assessment and examination carried out in
accordance with section 5. Such final report shall--
(1) include the findings of the Panel;
(2) identify lessons learned related to homeland security
management issues; and
(3) include specific recommendations related to--
(A) improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the
management structure and capabilities, including the
policies, practices, and procedures, of the Department of
Homeland Security and its component agencies in carrying out
the Department's management functions and mission to protect
the United States;
(B) reducing or eliminating unnecessary duplication in the
management structure and capabilities of the Department and
its component agencies;
(C) options, as appropriate, to reduce or eliminate harmful
waste and duplication of effort in the Department; and
(D) developing measures to evaluate the Department's
progress in reducing and eliminating waste and duplication
from its management structure and capabilities.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. McCaul) and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
General Leave
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise today in support of the DHS Accountability Act of 2012.
[[Page H6436]]
Congress has an important opportunity to make the Department of
Homeland Security a more effective and efficient organization. The
purpose of this bipartisan legislation is to create an independent
advisory panel to conduct a top-to-bottom examination of deficiencies
in the Department's management structure and capabilities. It follows
six subcommittee oversight hearings examining corruption, low morale,
inefficiency, and waste of taxpayer dollars, and comes almost 10 years
since the inception of DHS.
I appreciate the strong support of the ranking member of the Homeland
Security Oversight Subcommittee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Keating), as an original cosponsor of this bill.
As the third largest Federal Department, DHS has more than 240,000
employees and an annual budget of $60 billion. It's transformation,
according to the GAO, is critical to achieving its Homeland Security
mission; however, excessive bureaucracy, waste, ineffectiveness, and
lack of transparency have hindered its operations and wasted taxpayer
dollars. Mismanagement at the Department is a threat to the security of
our homeland.
Since 2003, GAO has designated the transformation of DHS has high
risk because the Department had to transform 22 agencies, several with
major management challenges, into one Department. Failure to
effectively address the Department's management risks could have
serious consequences. DHS remains on GAO's high-risk list. While GAO
has conducted numerous audits of specific DHS programs, a comprehensive
management assessment of the Department has yet to be conducted.
Our hearings and GAO findings conclude that DHS has made some
progress but is still dysfunctional in several areas. The Department
continues to face challenges in acquisition management, human capital,
integration of financial data, and IT. In August, my subcommittee
released a report outlining how the Department's management failures,
related to a variety of acquisition programs, have wasted taxpayer
dollars and had a serious impact on our ability to protect the
homeland. The report's findings show why such a panel is needed to help
fix the Department's shortcomings.
GAO's recent work also identified areas of duplicative effort. For
instance, GAO found agencies are paying for risk assessments that are
not being completed while simultaneously conducting their own
assessments. Employee morale also remains one of the lowest in the
Federal Government. Additionally, there are examples of Border Patrol
agents accepting bribes, theft by airport screeners, and immigration
officers complicit in fraud. These deficiencies cannot continue.
Based on the findings of these hearings and GAO reviews, I have
doubts that the Department can carry out its core mission of protecting
the homeland if the problems persist. These issues of corruption,
waste, duplication, and abuse of power are all symptomatic of deeply
rooted flaws in the Department's management. I believe it will take a
dedicated team of independent investigators to identify the root causes
and recommend concrete changes. A top-to-bottom management review is
necessary because the current management team is not getting the job
done.
The DHS Accountability Act of 2012, as amended, will create an
independent eight-member advisory panel appointed by the legislative
and executive branches to comprehensively assess DHS management
structure and capabilities. It will require the panel to make
recommendations to improve DHS's efficiency and effectiveness, and it
will require an interim report sent to Congress 1 year after the
panel's selection, with the final report due 2 years after its
inception.
The panel will possess subpoena power, the authority to conduct
hearings, and receive expert witness testimony. The panel's
recommendations will help make DHS a leaner, smarter, and more
effective organization and ferret out duplicative programs and offices.
Fellow Members, this legislation is our opportunity to take action,
and I urge you to support the DHS Accountability Act of 2012.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
I rise in support of H.R. 5913, the DHS Accountability Act of 2012.
The bill before the House today would create an independent advisory
panel to comprehensively assess and make recommendations regarding the
management structure and capabilities of the Department of Homeland
Security. While there is some question about whether this legislation
is necessary, as similar independent initiatives are already underway,
I appreciate the effort to improve the effectiveness of DHS's
management and will not oppose the bill.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support this bill, and as
I have no further speakers, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
ranking member of the Committee on Homeland Security Subcommittee on
Oversight, Investigations, and Management, the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Keating).
Mr. KEATING. Thank you, Ranking Member Thompson, for yielding your
time and for your leadership on the Homeland Security Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5913, the Department of
Homeland Security Accountability Act of 2012.
As the ranking member for the Subcommittee on Oversight,
Investigation, and Management, I was pleased to work with Chairman
McCaul and serve as the original cosponsor of this measure.
I appreciate the bipartisan discussions that led to the introduction
of the amended version we adopted at the subcommittee level, which is
the version being considered today.
{time} 1650
This bill goes to the heart of the subcommittee's mandate, which is
to ensure the effective management of the Department of Homeland
Security. Ensuring the effectiveness of the Department of Homeland
Security is not a partisan matter, and it should serve as a priority as
it is essential to our security and safety in this country.
Since its inception, the Department of Homeland Security has faced
significant management challenges, many of which stem from the very
nature of its creation, which was transforming 22 legacy agencies into
one cohesive, unified department. To its credit, the Department has
come a long way since its inception, but more work remains to be done.
The consideration of this bill comes at a time when Congress is
examining cost-saving and revenue-generating measures to reduce our
deficit while ensuring the safety and well-being of our citizens. There
is no doubt that the Department is making positive strides and has
clear plans in place to reduce duplicative efforts in the management
area. For example, the Department's Efficiency Review Initiative, which
was highlighted by Vice President Biden as a model for all Federal
agencies, has resulted in more than $1 billion in DHS cost avoidances,
including $180 million saved by consolidating duplicative software
licensing agreements.
I am also pleased that the Secretary has advanced internal measures
aimed at eliminating waste and fraud. Unfortunately, this does not
change the fact that a number of DHS activities are still shared by
other Federal agencies.
In March of 2011 and in February of 2012, the GAO identified six
areas across DHS where overlap or potential unnecessary duplication
exists. For example, when it comes to personnel background
investigations, cybersecurity trainings, and the identification of
fraudulent travel documents, the lines between multiple agencies remain
blurred. Furthermore, despite its management strides, the Department
has yet to fully address deficiencies in component operations that
result in the wasting of funds. The Department's Federal Protective
Service has received over $230 million from Federal agencies for risk
assessments and security services, yet these agencies have not found
the FPS's services adequate or satisfactory, so they perform their own
assessments as well.
This bill will determine instances of waste and abuse through an
independent advisory panel that will be
[[Page H6437]]
charged with two main responsibilities: to comprehensively assess the
management structure and capabilities related to the Department and to
make recommendations to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the
management of the Department. The legislation instructs the panel to
examine five broad categories:
the efficiency and effectiveness of management structure and
capabilities; whether unnecessary duplication exists; the extent to
which management of key homeland security missions is centralized;
waste and duplication.
Mr. Speaker, this bipartisan effort will comprise this panel's work
through the course of this session, which has been extensive. I want to
thank Chairman McCaul for his efforts in dealing with these issues. I
want to thank him for the bipartisan cooperation that has been there on
important issues of national security. I also want to thank the ranking
member for yielding his time and for his leadership on the committee.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I am in support of this
legislation, and I look forward to its adoption.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul) that the House suspend the rules and
pass the bill, H.R. 5913, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________