[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.

                          ____________________