[Senate Report 113-261]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
113th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 113-261
_______________________________________________________________________
DHS OIG MANDATES REVISION ACT OF 2014
__________
R E P O R T
of the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
to accompany
S. 2651
TO REPEAL CERTAIN MANDATES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
September 18, 2014.--Ordered to be printed
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
JON TESTER, Montana RAND PAUL, Kentucky
MARK BEGICH, Alaska MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire
HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota
Gabrielle A. Batkin, Staff Director
John P. Kilvington, Deputy Staff Director
Mary Beth Schultz, Chief Counsel
Jason M. Yanussi, Senior Professional Staff Member
Deanne B. Millison, Counsel
Keith B. Ashdown, Minority Staff Director
Christopher J. Barkley, Minority Deputy Staff Director
Andrew C. Dockham, Minority Chief Counsel
Daniel P. Lips, Minority Director of Homeland Security
Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk
113th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 113-261
======================================================================
DHS OIG MANDATES REVISION ACT OF 2014
_______
September 18, 2014.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Carper, from the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs, submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 2651]
The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs, to which was referred the bill (S. 2651) to repeal
certain mandates of the Department of Homeland Security Office
of Inspector General, having considered the same, reports
favorably thereon with an amendment and recommends that the
bill, as amended, do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
I. Purpose and Summary..............................................1
II. Background and Need for the Legislation..........................1
III. Legislative History..............................................2
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis......................................3
V. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact..................................3
VI. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................4
VII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............4
I. Purpose and Summary
S. 2651, the DHS OIG Mandates Revision Act, seeks to free
the Department of Homeland Security's Inspector General from
the requirement to perform unnecessary and duplicative
congressionally mandated audits. It would do so by rescinding
the statutory mandates for certain audits that the Department's
Inspector General has identified as costly and duplicative.
Without a congressional mandate, the Inspector General can
continue to conduct these audits periodically, but at his own
discretion.
II. Background and the Need for Legislation
Congress often includes in statutes directions for Offices
of Inspectors General (OIG) to perform particular audits. The
average OIG has approximately thirty percent of its workload
mandated.\1\ According to the Department of Homeland Security
OIG (DHS-OIG), however, it faces a work load that is
approximately 70 percent congressionally mandated, more than
double the typical amount.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\John Roth, Inspector General, Department of Homeland Security,
statement made to Congressional staff, Department of Homeland Security,
Office of the Inspector General Budget Briefing (March 11, 2014.)
\2\Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Inspector
General, Budget Briefing Power Point, FY 2014 Projected to be Issued
Reports By Origin, pg. 7 (March 11, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While congressionally mandated audits can be helpful, they
also reduce the amount of time, money and resources that an
office can spend conducting discretionary audits. According to
the DHS-OIG, discretionary audits are the agency's ``sweet spot
of oversight'' and provide the maximum impact.\3\ Specifically,
the DHS IG explained that discretionary audits provide greater
deterrence, more flexibility and the most value, because they
allow the agency to identify opportunities for corrections
before a crisis occurs.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Inspector
General, Budget Briefing Power Point, Audits by Origin (March 11,
2014).
\4\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The DHS-OIG worked closely with congressional staff to
identify several congressionally mandated audits that were
costly and either duplicative of other reports conducted by
other entities within the Department or otherwise unnecessary.
S. 2651 repeals the reporting requirements for several of these
identified audits in an effort to free the DHS-OIG from these
unnecessary and burdensome tasks. Rescinding these reporting
requirements enables the DHS-OIG to conduct more fruitful and
necessary audits. S. 2651 does not prohibit the DHS-OIG from
continuing to conduct periodic audits akin to those rescinded
by the bill, but rather enables the DHS-OIG to do a better job
of setting priorities and providing more efficient and
effective reports that will better assist the Department and
the Congress.
III. Legislative History
Ranking Member Coburn introduced S. 2651 on July 24, 2014.
The bill was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs. Chairman Carper cosponsored the bill.
The Committee considered S. 2651 at a business meeting on
July 30, 2014. Ranking Member Coburn and Chairman Carper
offered a substitute manager's amendment. The amendment
preserved one of the congressionally mandated reports, The
Annual Office of National Drug and Control Policy Review, from
elimination. The amendment was adopted, by unanimous consent.
Senators present were Senators Carper, Levin, Landrieu,
McCaskill, Begich, Baldwin, Coburn, Johnson and Ayotte.
The Committee ordered the bill, as amended, reported
favorably by voice vote on July 30, 2014. Senator Begich asked
to be recorded as voting ``no.'' Senators present for the vote
were Senators Carper, Levin, Landrieu, McCaskill, Begich,
Baldwin, Coburn, Johnson and Ayotte.
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 1 provides that the short Title for the Department
of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General Mandates
Revision Act of 2014--DHS OIG Mandates Revision Act of 2014.
Section 2 repeals the requirements for the DHS-OIG to
conduct three specific audits:
1. Repeal of DHS-OIG requirement to conduct an annual
evaluation of the Cargo Inspection Targeting System. The Annual
Cargo Inspection Report is mandated by The Coast Guard &
Maritime Transportation Act of 2004\5\ and requires the IG to
submit a report evaluating cargo inspection tracking systems
for international intermodal cargo containers. The IG audits
and reviews cargo security during its normal course of
business, and determines which aspects to review based on risk,
referrals, and information discovered during the course of
other audits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\P.L. 108-293, Sec. 809(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Repeal of DHS-OIG requirement to conduct an annual
review of Coast Guard Performance. The Annual United States
Coast Guard (USCG) Mission Review is mandated by The Homeland
Security Act of 2002\6\ and is an annual review to assess
thoroughly the performance by the USCG of all its missions,
with a particular emphasis on examining the non-homeland
security missions. The DHS-OIG report does not include any
additional information to what the USCG reports on their own,
and the IG does not make any recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\P.L. 107-296, Sec. 888(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Repeal of DHS-OIG requirement to conduct an annual
review of grants to states and high risk urban areas. Several
of the audits identified significant problems with the states'
and territories' management of the grant funds. However, most
of the audits resulted in similar findings and recommendations.
Fraud was not identified in the audits, and most of the
recommendations were for ways to improve the system and not
necessarily mismanagement. The DHS-OIG did identify some
questioned costs, but not to the extent originally expected as
the grant programs matured. For the audit reports issued in FY
2011 through 2013, estimated costs were more than $15 million
to complete and resulted in approximately $19 million in
questioned costs. However, the majority of those costs have
since been allowed.
V. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact
Pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 11(b) of rule
XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee has
considered the regulatory impact of this bill and determined
that the bill will have no regulatory impact within the meaning
of the rule. The Committee agrees with the Congressional Budget
Office's statement that the bill contains no intergovernmental
or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act (UMRA) and would impose no costs on state, local, or
tribal governments.
VI. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
September 15, 2014.
Hon. Tom Carper, Chairman,
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 2651, the DHS OIG
Mandates Revision Act of 2014.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark
Grabowicz.
Sincerely,
Douglas W. Elmendorf.
Enclosure.
S. 2651--DHS OIG Mandates Revision Act of 2014
S. 2651 would eliminate three annual reports currently
required of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of
Inspector General. The reports include audits or evaluations of
Coast Guard programs and certain DHS grants.
Based on information from DHS about anticipated spending on
these reports, CBO estimates that implementing S. 2651 could
lower spending by $1 million to $2 million annually, assuming
that future DHS appropriations are reduced consistent with the
bill's provisions. Enacting the legislation would not affect
direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go
procedures do not apply.
S. 2651 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and
would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal
governments.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Mark Grabowicz.
The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
VII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by
S. 2651 as reported are shown as follows (existing law proposed
to be omitted is enclosed in brackets, new matter is printed in
italic, and existing law in which no change is proposed is
shown in roman):
TITLE 46--SHIPPING
CHAPTER 701--PORT SECURITY
SEC. 70101--DEFINITIONS
46 U.S.C. 70101 note Vessel and Intermodal Security Reports
[Pub. L. 108-23, title VIII, Sec. 809(g)-(i), (k), Aug. 9,
2004, 118 Stat. 1087, 1088, provided that:
``(g) Evaluation of Cargo Inspection Targeting System for
International Intermodal Cargo Containers.--Within 180 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act [Aug. 9, 2004] and
annually thereafter, the Inspector General of the department in
which the Coast Guard is operating shall prepare a report that
includes an assessment of--
``(1) the effectiveness of the current tracking
system to determine whether it is adequate to prevent
international intermodal containers from being used for
purposes of terrorism;
``(2) the sources of information, and the quality of
the information at the time of reporting, used by the
system to determine whether targeting information is
collected from the best and most credible sources and
evaluate data sources to determine information gaps and
weaknesses;
``(3) the targeting system for reporting and
analyzing inspection statistics, as well as testing
effectiveness;
``(4) the competence and training of employees
operating the system to determine whether they are
sufficiently capable to detect potential terrorist
threats; and
``(5) whether the system is an effective system to
detect potential acts of terrorism and whether
additional steps need to be taken in order to remedy
deficiencies in targeting international intermodal
containers for inspection.
``(h) Action Report.--If the Inspector General of the
department in which the Coast Guard is operating determines in
any of the reports prepared under subsection (g) that the
targeting system is insufficiently effective as a means of
detecting potential acts of terrorism utilizing international
intermodal containers, then the Secretary of the department in
which the Coast Guard is operating shall, within 90 days,
submit a report to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure [of the] House of
Representatives on what actions will be taken to correct
deficiencies identified in the Inspector General Report.
``(i) Compliance With Security Standards Established
Pursuant to Maritime Transportation Security Plans.--Within 180
days after the date of the enactment of this Act [Aug. 9, 2004]
and annually thereafter, the Secretary of the department in
which the Coast Guard is operating shall prepare a report on
compliance and steps taken to ensure compliance by ports,
terminals, vessel operators, and shippers with security
standards established pursuant to section 70103 of title 46,
United States Code. The reports shall also include a summary of
security standards established pursuant to such section during
the previous year. The Secretary shall submit the reports to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
of the House of Representatives.
``(k) Report and Plan Formats.--The Secretary and the
Inspector General of the department in which the Coast Guard is
operating may submit any plan or report required by this
section in both classified and redacted formats, if the
Secretary determines that it is appropriate or necessary.'']
* * * * * * *
TITLE 6--DOMESTIC SECURITY
CHAPTER 1--HOMELAND SECURITY ORGANIZATION
SEC. 468--PRESERVING COAST GUARD MISSION PERFORMANCE
[(f) Annual review
(1) In general --The Inspector General of the
Department shall conduct an annual review that shall
assess thoroughly the performance by the Coast Guard of
all missions of the Coast Guard (including non-homeland
security missions and homeland security missions) with
a particular emphasis on examining the non-homeland
security missions.
(2) Report--The report under this paragraph shall be
submitted to--
(A) the Committee on Governmental Affairs of
the Senate;
(B) the Committee on Government Reform of the
House of Representatives;
(C) the Committees on Appropriations of the
Senate and the House of Representatives;
(D) the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate; and
(E) the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives.]
* * * * * * *
TITLE 6--HOMELAND SECURITY ORGANIZATION
CHAPTER 1--HOMELAND SECURITY ORGANIZATION
SEC. 612--ACCOUNTABILITY
(a) Audits of Grant Programs
[(3) Office of Inspector General performance audits
(A) In general--In order to ensure the
effective and appropriate use of grants
administered by the Department, the Inspector
General of the Department each year shall
conduct audits of a sample of States and high-
risk urban areas that receive grants
administered by the Department to prevent,
prepare for, protect against, or respond to
natural disasters, acts of terrorism, or other
man-made disasters, excluding assistance
provided under section 203, title IV, or title
V of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5133,5170
et seq., and 5191 et seq.).
(B) Determining samples--The sample selected
for audits under subparagraph (A) shall be--
(i) of an appropriate size to--
(I) assess the overall
integrity of the grant programs
described in subparagraph (A);
and
(II) act as a deterrent to
financial mismanagement; and
(ii) selected based on--
(I) the size of the grants
awarded to the recipient;
(II) the past grant
management performance of the
recipient;
(III) concerns identified by
the Administrator, including
referrals from the
Administrator; and
(IV) such other factors as
determined by the Inspector
General of the Department.
(C) Comprehensive auditing--During the 7-year
period beginning on August 3, 2007, the
Inspector General of the Department shall
conduct not fewer than 1 audit of each State
that receives funds under a grant under section
604 or 605 of this title.
(D) Report by the Inspector General--
(i) In general. The Inspector General
of the Department shall submit to the
appropriate committees of Congress an
annual consolidated report regarding
the audits completed during the fiscal
year before the date of that report.
(ii) Contents. Each report submitted
under clause (i) shall describe, for
the fiscal year before the date of that
report--
(I) the audits conducted
under subparagraph (A);
(II) the findings of the
Inspector General with respect
to the audits conducted under
subparagraph (A);
(III) whether the funds
awarded were used in accordance
with the law, program guidance,
and State homeland security
plans and other applicable
plans; and
(IV) the extent to which
funds awarded enhanced the
ability of a grantee to
prevent, prepare for, protect
against, and respond to natural
disasters, acts of terrorism
and other man-made disasters.
(iii) Deadline. For each year, the
report required under clause (i) shall
be submitted not later than December
31.
(E) Public availability on website--The
Inspector General of the Department shall make
each audit conducted under subparagraph (A)
available on the website of the Inspector
General, subject to redaction as the Inspector
General determines necessary to protect
classified and other sensitive information.
(F) Provision of information to
Administrator--The Inspector General of the
Department shall provide to the Administrator
any findings and recommendations from audits
conducted under subparagraph (A).
(G) Evaluation of grants management and
oversight--Not later than 1 year after August
3, 2007, the Inspector General of the
Department shall review and evaluate the grants
management and oversight practices of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, including
assessment of and recommendations relating to--
(i) the skills, resources, and
capabilities of the workforce; and
(ii) any additional resources and
staff necessary to carry out such
management and oversight.
(H) Authorization of appropriations--In
addition to any other amounts authorized to be
appropriated to the Inspector General of the
Department, there are authorized to be
appropriated to the Inspector General of the
Department for audits under subparagraph (A)--
(i) $8,500,000 for each of fiscal
years 2008, 2009, and 2010; and
(ii) such sums as are necessary for
fiscal year 2011, and each fiscal year
thereafter.]
* * * * * * *