U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

67–125 PDF 2012

S. Hrg. 112–243 

NOMINATION OF RAFAEL BORRAS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

NOMINATION OF RAFAEL BORRAS TO BE UNDER SECRETARY FOR 

MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

APRIL 6, 2011 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/ 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

MICHAEL L. ALEXANDER, Staff Director 

CHRISTIAN J. BECKNER, Associate Staff Director for Homeland Security 

Prevention and Protection 

KRISTINE V. LAM, Professional Staff Member 

NICHOLAS A. ROSSI, Minority Staff Director 

ROBERT L. STRAYER, Minority Deputy Staff Director 

JENNIFER L. TARR, Minority Counsel 

TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, Chief Clerk 

PATRICIA R. HOGAN, Publications Clerk and GPO Detailee 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Hearing Clerk 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Lieberman ........................................................................................... 1 

Senator Collins ................................................................................................. 3 

Senator Akaka .................................................................................................. 4 

Senator Johnson ............................................................................................... 13 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 23 

Prepared statements: 

Senator Lieberman ........................................................................................... 29 

Senator Collins ................................................................................................. 31 

Senator Akaka .................................................................................................. 33 

WITNESS 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 6, 2011 

Rafael Borras to be Under Secretary for Management, U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 34 

Biographical and financial information .......................................................... 37 

Letter from the Office of Government Ethics with an attachment .............. 48 

Responses to pre-hearing questions ................................................................ 50 

Letter from Mark Sullivan submitted by Senator Lieberman ...................... 105 

Letter from Hon. Richard Skinner submitted by Senator Lieberman ......... 106 

Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record ..................................... 107 

(1) 

NOMINATION OF RAFAEL BORRAS 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 6, 2011 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Joseph I. Lieberman, presiding. 

Present: Senators Lieberman, Akaka, Carper, Collins, and Johnson. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN LIEBERMAN 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Good morning. The hearing will come to 

order. 

Today, the Committee considers the nomination of Rafael Borras 

to serve as Under Secretary for Management at the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS). 

Mr. Borras, I think, brings a lot of energy and experience to what 

is an unglamorous but vitally important job. I say ‘‘brings’’ as opposed to ‘‘would bring’’ because, as I will explain in a minute, he 

has been filling this position for a period of time. Everything that 

the Department does that the public sees depends in some critical 

way on what might be called the back-room functions that are the 

purview of the Under Secretary for Management: Acquisition of 

private sector goods and services; hiring and encouraging the best 

in human capital; developing and running information technology 

(IT) systems; and responsible financial management of the public’s 

dollars. These are among the very important responsibilities of this 

position. 

In a Department that was created only 8 years ago, and a very 

big Department at that, the Under Secretary for Management 

serves as a linchpin to bring together the disparate processes and 

procedures of what were once 22 separate agencies. I believe that 

Mr. Borras’ 27 years of experience in the public and private sectors 

and, now I can say, excellent work during the past year on the job 

qualify him for the position for which he has been nominated. 

In government, Mr. Borras has held several senior management 

positions, including Assistant Secretary for Administration at the 

Commerce Department and Regional Administrator for the General 

Services Administration, with responsibilities that were quite similar to those he has been asked to undertake as Under Secretary for 

Management and, I think, prepared him for the kinds of challenges 

he has faced at DHS. 

2 

1The letter submitted by Senator Lieberman from Mark Sullivan appears in the Appendix on 

page 105. 

Earlier in his career, he held a position near and dear to my 

heart. He was Deputy City Manager of Hartford, obviously, the 

capital city of my home State of Connecticut, and in that position, 

as a matter of record, he helped balance the city’s budget without 

raising taxes, which was no small feat during the recession of the 

early 1990s and, I might say on a more subjective basis, left a lot 

of people in Hartford with very good feelings and memories of his 

service there. 

Mr. Borras also spent 10 years as Vice President at URS Corporation, a global engineering, construction, and technical services 

firm, which provides services to both the public and private sectors. 

When Mr. Borras was first nominated to be Under Secretary for 

Management at DHS in July 2009, I concluded that he was qualified for the position and supported his nomination, which was reported out of this Committee by a 7-to-3 vote. Unfortunately, others 

had doubts, and following the Committee’s vote in October 2009, a 

hold was placed on this nomination so a vote in the full Senate 

could not be scheduled. 

President Obama felt it was important enough to fill this position 

and was confident enough about Mr. Borras’ qualifications that he 

put him on the job through a recess appointment on March 27, 

2010. 

Now, the nominee returns to the Committee with a year of experience as the Under Secretary, and to make a long story short, I 

believe that Rafael Borras has proven himself to be a dedicated and 

very capable leader in a challenging position. In other words, he 

has earned Senate confirmation. 

It is worth noting that Mr. Borras has also received support from 

senior leaders within the Department with whom he has been 

working over the last year, and I want to cite as an example a communication to the Committee sent by the Director of the Secret 

Service, Mark Sullivan,1 who is, as I am sure most people here 

know, a non-political appointee with 33 years of law enforcement 

experience, who wrote a very strong letter of endorsement and 

asked that ‘‘this dedicated and talented professional’’ continue as 

Under Secretary for Management. Director Sullivan added, Mr. 

Borras ‘‘has taken a proactive approach to enhance his understanding of the Secret Service, our operational requirements, and 

our contributions to the DHS mission. He effectively communicates 

with DHS leadership and implements policies to allow components 

the opportunity to leverage and maximize DHS assets and resources to improve operational effectiveness and efficiency.’’ That 

is, in my opinion, a very important, influential comment. 

Mr. Borras’ recess appointment expires at the end of this year. 

If the Senate fails to confirm him, I believe it would be a significant loss for the Department, and so I hope that not only will our 

Committee confirm him again, but the full Senate will, as well. 

Senator Collins. 

3 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLLINS 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We convene today 

to consider again the nomination of Rafael Borras to be Under Secretary for Management at the Department of Homeland Security. 

Two years ago, after careful consideration, I decided to oppose 

the nomination of Mr. Borras. This was extremely unusual for me 

as I believe that the President should have a great deal of latitude 

to nominate a person of his choosing to serve in the cabinet or in 

a senior executive position, but I had concerns at that time about 

Mr. Borras’ lack of experience and his spotty compliance with our 

tax laws. I would note, however, that I was not the source of the 

hold that prevented Mr. Borras’ nomination from being considered 

by the full Senate. 

The Under Secretary for Management oversees the management 

of more than 200,000 employees, a $50 billion annual budget, expensive procurement projects, and vital interagency coordination. 

Over the past 8 years, the Department has struggled to complete 

the enormous task of integrating thousands of employees and more 

than two dozen Federal agencies with different missions, traditions, and cultures. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) 

placed DHS on its High-Risk List once again this year and concluded that ‘‘DHS has not yet demonstrated sustainable progress in 

implementing corrective actions and in addressing key challenges 

within its management functions and in integrating those functions 

within and across the Department.’’ 

The Under Secretary for Management must ensure that there is 

efficient and effective use of personnel and technology to combat 

the very real threats that we face. To accomplish this goal, the 

Under Secretary must possess exceptional leadership abilities and 

a track record of management success. Indeed, this is not only my 

view, it is the law. Four years ago, our Committee enacted requirements that the Under Secretary must possess significant leadership capability, extensive executive-level management experience, a 

demonstrated ability to manage large, complex organizations, and 

a proven record in achieving positive operational results. 

As the Chairman has indicated, due to a recess appointment, 

which circumvented the Senate and should not have been made by 

the President, Mr. Borras now has a year in a position that requires experience managing large and complex organizations. 

While Mr. Borras is admirably committed to public service, I continue to have some, albeit fewer, questions about whether his experience is sufficient to overcome the challenges that DHS faces. 

I sincerely hope that those remaining questions can be resolved 

favorably today. I want to hear his own assessment of what he has 

accomplished, and I will say for the record that in talking to people, including Mr. Borras’ predecessors and the private sector, I am 

hearing generally favorable reviews of his performance during the 

past year. 

At the hearing in 2009, I also questioned Mr. Borras about what 

appears to be a pattern of errors on his taxes. These numerous tax 

errors still trouble me because they appear to indicate a lack of attention to detail and a pattern of carelessness. 

4 

DHS needs a strong hand at the management helm. I intend to 

question Mr. Borras on his accomplishments to date and his plans 

for addressing the serious challenges that remain at DHS. 

Let me emphasize that I am certainly going to give this nominee 

another look in light of his experience over the past year, and I will 

certainly give him a fair opportunity to present his case for confirmation. I approach this hearing with an open mind and also in 

recognizing the year of on-the-job experience. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Collins. I 

appreciate that statement. 

Senator Akaka is Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight of 

Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District 

of Columbia, and in that capacity, he has been very involved with 

the Management Directorate at DHS and has worked closely with 

Under Secretary Borras. 

Normally nominees have people introduce them and Senator 

Akaka has actually asked for, I presume with your consent, the 

honor of introducing the nominee this morning. Senator Akaka. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am delighted to be here as we consider Rafael Borras to continue as 

Under Secretary for Management at the Department of Homeland 

Security, and I am also delighted to have the Ranking Member of 

our Subcommittee, Senator Johnson, here. 

Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Collins, I would like to take 

this opportunity to introduce and welcome Mr. Borras to the Committee once again and also to have the pleasure of welcoming his 

lovely wife, Ivelisse, and also Jason, his son, to this hearing, and 

also his supporters who are here with him from the Department. 

I first met Mr. Borras in 2009 before his confirmation hearing. 

I told him then that Elaine Duke was leaving him big shoes to fill 

at DHS. After over a year on the job, he has demonstrated his ability to improve the focus of management as a priority at the Department. 

Before coming to DHS, Under Secretary Borras had over 20 

years of Federal, local, and private sector management experience. 

During his tenure as the Under Secretary, he has made improving 

acquisitions and financial management, along with the rightsizing 

the contractor workforce at DHS, top priorities. I am pleased that 

he has also been focusing on getting DHS off the Government Accountability Office’s High-Risk List, where it has been since the 

Department was created in 2003. His office recently sent GAO and 

the Committee a detailed strategic plan for better management integration at the Department. 

I want to emphasize how impressed I have been with Mr. Borras’ 

engagement with us. Last year, my friend and former Ranking 

Member Senator Voinovich and I held a series of monthly meetings 

with Under Secretary Borras to keep our Subcommittee up to date 

on his progress. He has continued to keep the Subcommittee apprised of management issues and has made himself available to the 

Committee and our staff. 

5 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Borras appears in the Appendix on page 34. 

I will not go on about his qualifications except to say that I believe Under Secretary Borras has demonstrated his ability to lead 

the DHS Management Directorate, and I support his confirmation. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks very much, Senator Akaka. 

I will now proceed to the nominee. Mr. Borras has filed responses 

to biographical and financial questionnaires, answered prehearing 

questions submitted by the Committee, and has had his financial 

statements reviewed by the Office of Government Ethics. Without 

objection, this information will be made part of the hearing record, 

with the exception of the financial data, which are on file and 

available for public inspection at the Committee’s office. 

Our Committee rules require, as I think you know, Mr. Borras, 

that all witnesses at nomination hearings give their testimony 

under oath, so I would ask you now to please stand and raise your 

right hand. 

Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give to the 

Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 

truth, so help you, God? 

Mr. BORRAS. I do. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you very much. Please be seated. 

We would now welcome an opening statement if you would like to 

give it and an introduction, if you would like, of any family or 

friends who are with you today. 

TESTIMONY OF RAFAEL BORRAS1 TO BE UNDER SECRETARY 

FOR MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. BORRAS. Thank you, Chairman Lieberman, Senator Collins, 

Senator Akaka, and Senator Johnson. I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today as you consider my confirmation. 

It was a great honor to have been nominated by President 

Obama, and it has been my privilege to serve as the Under Secretary for Management. I have worked to earn the trust and the 

confidence of the Secretary, the Deputy Secretary, Department 

leadership, and our employees. It is my sincere hope that through 

my work this past year, I have earned your confidence, as well. 

I would like to thank Secretary Janet Napolitano and Deputy 

Secretary Jane Holl Lute for their tremendous support of the Management Directorate, as well as their personal support and encouragement of me. Additionally, I would like to thank the leadership 

and the employees of the Management Directorate. Their fine work 

and dedication have enabled me to build on the progress that has 

already been made by my predecessors. 

Furthermore, it has been pleasure over the last year to have had 

extensive interactions with many Members of this Committee and 

their dedicated staff. This Department owes a great debt of gratitude to you for your leadership and support in meeting the management challenges associated with weaving together the 22 agencies that came together in 2003 upon the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. 

6 

The past year has been filled with many challenges. Since my appointment, I have led the development and implementation of a 

comprehensive strategic management approach focused on maturing organizational effectiveness within DHS. Through this effort, 

we are focused on enhancing the financial, acquisition, and human 

capital structures and processes necessary to meet DHS mission 

goals by integrating and aligning business functional areas at both 

the Department and component levels. 

I have submitted the Department’s first comprehensive Management Integration Plan to the Government Accountability Office, 

and I have worked to prioritize sound financial management. 

Under my leadership, we have reduced financial material weaknesses from 12 to 9, audit qualifications from 10 to 1, and material 

weaknesses in internal controls from 10 to 6. I have also worked 

to provide executive oversight of the Consolidated Headquarters 

Project, which includes the St. Elizabeths campus, a project I know 

that is very close to your hearts. 

While the position of the Under Secretary for Management is the 

Department’s Chief Management Officer, I have also addressed my 

role as the Chief Good Government Officer, constantly asking if our 

actions represent good government practices as well as making 

sure that we are responsible in our expenditures of taxpayer monies. Whether through the budget process or my regular interactions 

with the components, I am mindful of our need to be good stewards 

of the investments that the taxpayers are making to meet the critical mission needs of the Department. 

I am committed to continuing to work with this Committee in ensuring that the Department meets our most pressing management 

challenges. My predecessors, Elaine Duke, Paul Schneider, and 

Janet Hale, have done an admirable job of building a foundation 

for sound management practices at DHS. I take it as my responsibility to build upon their efforts, adding value to the Department’s 

operators and helping to build a strong departmental management 

portfolio in support of the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary’s 

leadership to unify DHS. 

Once again, I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you. 

I hope that I will be able to convey the passion with which I approach the management of DHS and hope to be able to continue 

to work with you for years to come. 

Thank you for your consideration of my nomination. Thank you 

to my family and to my friends and to my colleagues who generously joined me here this morning in support of my nomination. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you. Thanks for that opening 

statement. 

Let me begin by asking the standard three questions we ask of 

all nominees. First, is there anything you are aware of in your 

background that might present a conflict of interest with the duties 

of the office to which you have been nominated? 

Mr. BORRAS. No, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Second, do you know of anything, personal or otherwise, that would in any way prevent you from fully 

and honorably discharging the responsibilities of the office to which 

you have been nominated? 

Mr. BORRAS. No. 

7 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. And finally, do you agree without reservation to respond to any reasonable summons to appear and testify 

before any duly constituted committee of Congress if you are confirmed? 

Mr. BORRAS. Yes, I do. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you. We will start with a round of 

questions of 7 minutes for each Member. 

Let me begin with a broader question and give you an opportunity to give an overview. Obviously, you have been on the job 

now for just over a year. What is the greatest surprise that you 

have had about the Department of Homeland Security, and what 

do you feel best about that you have done in the first year? 

Mr. BORRAS. I welcome the opportunity to answer that question. 

I would say the biggest surprise I have had relative to what I have 

heard people say about the Department and its management has 

been that certainly it is not as horrible as it is made out to be. The 

employees of the Department of Homeland Security, particularly in 

the Management Directorate, are very bright, very qualified, hardworking individuals who care deeply about good management at 

DHS. 

I would say my biggest contribution over the past year has been 

to harness that dedication of the employees and to provide leadership. I think the most important qualification and the most important asset for the Under Secretary of Management is to be able to 

demonstrate leadership qualities, to be able to bring the Department together, to be able to add value, and to be able to build the 

relationships with the components and with the employees. 

I have focused on that tremendously over my past year, and I am 

very humbled by those members of the organization, like Director 

Sullivan and others, who have expressed appreciation for the work 

that I have done and the leadership that I have shown, and I am 

tremendously appreciative of the support and encouragement I 

have received from Secretary Napolitano as I have exercised that 

leadership. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Good. This past year, along with Deputy 

Secretary Lute, I know you conducted a series of budget reviews 

with each of the components of the Department of Homeland Security. In your answers to the Committee’s prehearing questions, you 

note that as part of this budget review process, you focused on 

‘‘identifying areas of redundancy and overlap between DHS components, looking for efficiencies and potential savings.’’ And, of 

course, I appreciate that, and I wonder if you would discuss what 

you have done to find and eliminate overlapping and duplicative 

activities among DHS components. 

Mr. BORRAS. Mr. Chairman, I was very fortunate from the standpoint of the budget to arrive 1 year ago upon my appointment right 

in the beginning of the budget process. So I had a tremendous opportunity to work closely with the Deputy Secretary and all of the 

component leadership to begin to examine, as we were building the 

2012 through 2016 budget, very carefully how we were proposing 

to make the investments in the Department and to support the 

critical mission areas, and through that process and chairing the 

program review budget process for most of that time, it gave me 

an opportunity to visit with the components. 

8 

The way that we structured that meeting is we would examine 

the budget of one particular department—take Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement (ICE), for example—but we would have representatives from Customs and Border Protection (CBP), from the 

Coast Guard, and from other parts of the Department. And I used 

that opportunity to not only examine ICE’s budget, for example, 

but to understand as ICE is building its budget, are they looking 

at and taking into consideration how CBP is building its budget, 

to look for opportunities to find commonalities and to make sure 

that we are not duplicating, and also to make sure that we are cognizant as we are building our budgets that we are looking at other 

expenditures in different components. For example, the Congress was very generous in providing $600 

million to the Department to enhance our border protection, mostly 

through Customs and Border Protection. So I was very focused on 

how, for example, that major investment, which went predominately to CBP, influenced the development of ICE’s budget, and 

how that influenced the development of the Coast Guard’s budget 

because we cannot build these budgets in isolation of one another. 

So it was very important to focus on what are the interrelationships between how we build our budget, to look for areas of overlap 

or for duplication, and to push that out of our budget request. Look 

for areas of prioritization that support the Quadrennial Homeland 

Security Review that the Department worked so hard to develop 

and make sure that our investments were aligned with those mission sets. 

So my focus was on looking for those efficiencies and clearly coming to a point where we can recommend to the Secretary a budget 

and in turn submit a budget to the President, and of course, the 

President submits on behalf of the entire government, the DHS 

budget. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Are you at a point in the process where 

you can cite any actual efficiencies that you believe have resulted 

from that process? 

Mr. BORRAS. Well, we concentrated on eliminating a lot of redundancies and looking for management efficiencies, and we were looking specifically for repeatable, not one time but repeatable, savings. 

So, for example, in our review of the IT portfolio, we examined 

areas where we were having either duplication or redundancies. A 

specific example, which resulted in about $150 million in savings, 

was being able to look across the enterprise at the number of Enterprise License Agreements that we had, licenses for software that 

were duplicative around the agency. So we very aggressively went 

after that and began to consolidate those to actually bring together 

new Enterprise License Agreements so that we can have standardized license agreements for like software. 

That is just one example of many instances where we reviewed 

the IT portfolio, we looked at our acquisitions, and we looked at expenditures related to people. We collapsed the Candidate Development Program for the Senior Executive Service (SES). The Department had four different SES Candidate Development Programs. 

Through this process, we focused on that as a priority, and we reduced it down to one Candidate Development Program that does a 

number of things. It provides a common training and leadership 

9 

function throughout the Department, so we are training executives 

for leadership in the Department of Homeland Security, not necessarily in the component. Clearly, it reduces overlap and redundancy by eliminating duplicative training programs. There are just 

many examples that we worked with closely. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. That is great. Those are two very good examples. I appreciate them. Thank you. 

Senator Collins. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Borras, Senator Lieberman and I have been concerned for 

some time about the Department’s over-reliance on contract employees, so we asked the Department to give us a number. We said, 

how many contract employees do you have? In February of last 

year, the Department reported to this Committee that there were 

210,000 contract employees at DHS. This was an astonishing number because it exceeded the number of Federal employees at DHS. 

Then about a year later, this year, the Department informed us 

that the initial estimate was overstated by 100,000 contract employees. It is extremely troubling to me that the Department would 

have so little notion of how many contract employees that are 

working at the Department that it could be off by a factor of 

100,000. It demonstrates a management weakness at DHS if that 

error was not caught. 

How is it that DHS could report to this Committee such a wildly 

inaccurate number? 

Mr. BORRAS. Well, I will say two things. I appreciate the question, Senator Collins. When I arrived in the beginning of April, approximately 1 year ago, certainly, I was made aware of that estimate of 200,000 contract employees. I will say this is a good example of how I used my experience from the private sector specifically 

to question the validity of that number. 

Upon my arrival, just doing the math behind what the cost 

would be to support 200,000 contract employees did not make 

sense. I met with our Chief Human Capital Officer (CHCO), Jeff 

Neal, who actually had the same level of skepticism as I did. So 

we were very concerned about the veracity of that 200,000 number. 

I directed the CHCO to work with the Chief Procurement Officer 

to go back to the contractor. They used a contractor, LMI, to develop an algorithm to be able to understand what the number of 

contractors were. 

So that is a specific example, Senator, of how I used my private 

sector experience, understanding how contractors are. We went in, 

we looked at that, and lo and behold, the contractor found an arithmetic problem in their algorithm and had to redo the assessment, 

which resulted in a new number of under 100,000 contractors, 

which resulted in that contractor returning their entire fee to the 

Department of Homeland Security based on their inability to do a 

good job on that assignment. 

Senator COLLINS. Mr. Borras, I want to be very precise here. Are 

you telling the Committee, then, that you were the individual in 

the Department who first raised questions about the 210,000 contractor employee figure? 

Mr. BORRAS. Well, prior to my arrival, between February, when 

the numbers were released, and March, I suppose there may have 

10 

been other people who questioned the fidelity of the number. But 

I can absolutely tell you with certainty here, the Members of this 

Committee, that based on my experience, I determined very quickly 

that there was a big problem with that number. Just understanding the way contractors develop their rates, how they build 

their workforce, it did not add up. There was no way that I could 

determine that it was a good number. 

Senator COLLINS. I am very pleased to hear that. That is at odds 

with my understanding, which was that the contractor who was 

tasked with assessing how many contract employees DHS had, in 

fact, was the entity that discovered the mistake. But you are saying that is not correct. 

Mr. BORRAS. That is not correct. 

Senator COLLINS. I am very pleased to hear that. 

Should the Department have had a better handle on how many 

contract employees that it had? 

Mr. BORRAS. I think that is a very good question, Senator. There 

is an inherent difficulty in calculating the number of contractors 

that are working on DHS or any Federal contract. Many of our contracts are firm fixed-price contracts where, based on the way the 

contract is written, we do not know the actual work effort that the 

contractor is providing to DHS to provide a service, which is why 

most entities use some form of algorithm to be able to arrive at an 

estimate. 

However, the good news is, as a result of our effort and the effort 

of many others throughout government, the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) and the Office of Federal Procurement Policy 

(OFPP) have decided to take the lead in providing a consistent 

methodology, not just at DHS but across the government, so that 

we can use that to be able to better determine the number of contractors. 

Also, there is a tremendous need to have better reporting by contractors on the number of work year equivalents, so they can report 

that so we can better understand that. 

I agree wholeheartedly with the concern of this Committee. It is 

very difficult to invest that much money in contracts and not have 

a good handle on the number of contractors, which is a very important workforce issue for us. We need to make sure that we are 

properly staffed, that we have the proper management span of control, to oversee contractors. And until we have a good number and 

we understand that span of control, it is very difficult for this department or any department to adequately resource its span of control to manage contractors. 

Senator COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, in the 30 seconds that I have 

left—— 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Go right ahead, Senator Collins. You can 

go over. 

Senator COLLINS [continuing]. I am just going to raise an issue 

that I raised last year. Mr. Borras, you and I had an extensive exchange last year on your 2005 and 2006 tax returns and the errors 

on them, and I am not going to go through that again because I 

think we had an extensive exchange. 

I am sure you reviewed the record in preparation for this hearing. Is there any new information that you would like the ComVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:04 Feb 14, 2012 Jkt 67125 PO 00000 Frm 000014 Fmt 06633 Sfmt 06633 P:\DOCS\67125.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
11 

mittee to be aware of related to the mistakes that were made on 

those 2 years? 

Mr. BORRAS. I appreciate the opportunity to respond to that 

question. I would note for the record that I voluntarily provided 

that information prior to my nomination by the President. I provided all relevant facts and information regarding two very regrettable tax years where I made very simple mistakes, and that is a 

very humbling conversation to have in a public forum. Clearly, I 

think it was important that the Committee be aware of that information and that the Committee completely understand that I deeply regretted those errors. I had no record prior to or since that time 

of making those kind of errors. 

In the one year that I have been on the job—and I think it is 

a very legitimate question to ask—does it reflect upon my professional ability to do my job in a way that is not careless or reckless? 

There is nothing in my professional record, either before or since 

and clearly during my time at DHS, that would have anybody indicate that I am either careless or reckless or have no attention to 

detail. 

Senator COLLINS. So just to get back to my question, you stand 

by the answers in our exchange that we had on the taxes and there 

is no new information that you want to add, is that correct? 

Mr. BORRAS. I was completely forthcoming—— 

Senator COLLINS. I am not challenging that. I am just asking if 

there is any additional information, and I think you are saying that 

you stand by the answers. Is that correct? 

Mr. BORRAS. I stand by the answers I made to this Committee 

and the more than 10 hours of discussion on the taxes I had with 

the staff, where, again, I believe I was extremely forthcoming on 

all of these issues. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you. Just one final comment on that 

issue, and I will let it go. Every nominee is expected to be forthcoming if there are errors on their tax returns. That is not something that you get special credit for. That is required as part of the 

vetting process. I appreciate that you were forthcoming, but any 

nominee who was not forthcoming and tried to conceal errors on 

his tax returns would be in deep trouble with the Administration, 

I would hope, as well as with this Committee. So having said that, 

I appreciate your answer. Thank you. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Senator Collins. I mean, in fact, 

we have had maybe one that comes to mind of somebody who did 

conceal something in the vetting by the White House and before 

the Committee, and ultimately when it came out, the President 

withdrew his nomination, so thanks, Senator Collins. 

Senator Akaka, you are next. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Borras, earlier this year, you submitted a strategic management plan to address the Department’s integration and other challenges related to the Government Accountability Office’s high-risk 

designation. As I said in my introduction, I appreciate your attention to this issue. To what extent did you work with GAO in developing this plan and how has it been received? 

Mr. BORRAS. Thank you, Senator Akaka, for the question, and I 

appreciate the opportunity to expand a little bit on how we address 

12 

the primary issues that GAO was focused on, which was DHS’s 

designation of a high-risk agency around management transformation and building a better relationship with GAO. 

I committed to this Committee and to the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary that would be among my highest priorities, to rebuild 

the relationship, to build a very good, strong relationship with GAO 

as well as with the Inspector General (IG), and to focus my efforts 

around getting the Department off of the High-Risk List. 

My assessment of the original plan that had been submitted, although it was a good plan, was that it was primarily a tactical plan 

to address specific tactical issues that were of a high priority to the 

Department. My focus was to develop a very comprehensive framework to address systematically a whole series of management challenges in the Department, and I used that opportunity, working in 

the Department, both within the Management Directorate and 

with the components, to bring the Department together in the development of this comprehensive plan. 

The comprehensive plan, which I have as a prop in front of me, 

is a very substantial plan. It represents the first attempt, acknowledged by GAO, to put together a comprehensive framework on how 

we will address the High-Risk List, how we will get off, with specific, comprehensive action plan items that we have put in place 

with timelines and deadlines, and we submitted this back in January to GAO. GAO has designated the report as being an important 

step toward getting off of GAO’s High-Risk List. 

I want to thank GAO for collaborating with us during the development of this process. I had several meetings with GAO staff to 

talk about and better understand the designation of high risk, to 

better understand the kinds of areas they were looking for to be 

able to focus on what is improvement and how we will measure improvement and document improvement, and that is what is represented in this plan. And we are holding ourselves accountable. 

We are meeting with GAO on a quarterly basis to review progress 

against the milestones and the timelines we have set. 

Senator AKAKA. Can you further express how you felt it was received? 

Mr. BORRAS. I would say that the reception by GAO was very significant for us at the Department of Homeland Security. It represented the first time that we had a comprehensive approach to 

address getting off the High-Risk List. In their communication 

back to me, again, they represented this effort as being important, 

significant progress. 

We have changed the nature of the conversation with GAO. No 

longer are we talking about what it will take to get off the HighRisk List. Now, we are talking about measuring our progress on 

getting off of the High-Risk List. That is a very important change 

in the past year. 

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Borras, DHS continues to struggle with employee morale and ratings in the Best Places to Work survey. I believe improving employee satisfaction is critical to recruiting and 

retaining an excellent workforce. What steps are you taking to address this issue? 

Mr. BORRAS. Senator Akaka, you have repeatedly raised this 

issue as being important to you, important to your Subcommittee, 

13 

important to the full Committee, and this issue is something that 

we have taken very seriously. We have taken a look at the Federal 

employee surveys conducted over the last several years. There are 

a couple of points I would make. 

First of all, DHS continues to make improvement. I would not 

refer to it as significant improvement, but demonstrable improvement every year as it relates to the Federal survey. So we are beginning to address the issues of employee morale, but there is a 

long road to go. 

We have convened several employee focus groups to follow up on 

specific items raised and identified through the Human Capital 

Survey. Additionally, we are having our own surveys conducted in 

the Department, again, to better understand and to involve employees in seeking specific remedies to be able to address how we 

will improve morale. 

One of the most important facts around improving the morale is 

how we communicate to our employees. Speaking for myself, we 

have done numerous town hall meetings. I personally go out and 

meet with employees. We hold collaborative working sessions. We 

have been very collaborative in working with the employees of the 

Management Directorate, and I will note that the Management Directorate—before my time there, but I should give credit to this— 

has the highest employee satisfaction rating of any entity within 

DHS. 

So we have a well motivated, very experienced, and very dedicated workforce. I am very proud of them and of being able to represent them. And we are taking a look at those lessons we have 

learned in the Management Directorate and applying them to the 

components, working with their leadership. 

Senator AKAKA. As you know, in 2010, the Office of Personnel 

Management scored DHS as being poor in morale, and this is the 

reason I have been concerned about that and am glad that you are 

working on this. 

Mr. Chairman, I will take a second round. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Senator Akaka. 

Senator Johnson, thanks for being here. I must say, since you 

have come to the Senate and joined the Committee, you have really 

been very faithful in attending our hearings, and as Chairman, I 

appreciate it. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHNSON 

Senator JOHNSON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is important work, so I am glad to do it. 

Mr. Borras, it is a pleasure to see you again, and welcome to 

your family. I would imagine you have a core team of managers, 

subordinates who work for you. Can you describe to me who those 

folks are and what their function is and how you work with those 

people? 

Mr. BORRAS. Yes. The core team of the Management Directorate 

is comprised of the Chief Financial Officer (CFO), the Chief Information Officer (CIO), the Chief Procurement Officer, the Chief 

Human Capital Officer, the Chief Security Officer—probably a couple of other chiefs there that—— [Laughter.] 

Senator JOHNSON. Sure. 

14 

Mr. BORRAS. I am blanking at the moment. The Chief Procurement Officer, the Chief Human Capital Officer, the Chief Financial 

Officer, the Chief Security Officer—— 

Senator JOHNSON. That is OK. It is not a quiz. I just wanted to 

find out how you deal with those folks, I mean, in terms of their 

responsibilities. How far do you dig down into their functions? 

Mr. BORRAS. Well, that is a great question, and it was very important upon my arrival to establish a collaborative working environment with the chiefs of the lines of business. One of the things 

that I have emphasized, particularly around management integration, is if we are going to promote management integration, we 

have to live an integrated management style. So I work very closely with the chiefs. I am not a micromanager, but it is very important to convey priorities, to hold them accountable, to identify what 

are the priorities, what are the action items we are going to take. 

We meet weekly. We review progress. We have changed the way 

we communicate among ourselves, and Senator, I will tell you why 

I think that is important. 

In the past, there was a tendency in these lines of business to 

communicate vertically, that is, to communicate from a line of business to the Under Secretary and to have a series of one-on-one conversations. What we have done is we communicate both vertically 

and horizontally. Any communication that comes to me from a 

chief, for example, my weekly reports, also goes to all the other 

lines of business chiefs so we have complete transparency on the 

conversation that is taking place, so we do not have siloed conversations. We are living the experience of management integration. We address all management areas, whether it be a financial 

matter, an acquisition area, with all of the chiefs present. 

So this is part of my collaborative management style. It is the 

way that we demonstrate to the rest of the organization that we 

are all in this together. It is reflected positively by the components 

because they see that we address these issues together. So I think 

that is a direct result of my management style. The chiefs have responded very well to that style. They communicate well with each 

other, and I am very proud of the work that they do. We could not 

have had a management integration plan without all of the chiefs 

being involved and represented in this effort, and this plan is made 

up of every one of those functional areas, the Chief Financial Officer, Chief Human Capital Officer, Chief Information Officer, all of 

the chiefs. We are a true team. 

Senator JOHNSON. Are they members of the SES? 

Mr. BORRAS. Yes, they are, Senator. 

Senator JOHNSON. We just recently held a hearing on the SES 

and the problems in recruiting top managers in the government. 

Are you seeing similar types of problems, and what would those be? 

Mr. BORRAS. Well, I will tell you, Senator, right now, we are seeing a tremendous amount of interest in the positions that we advertise at DHS. We are probably getting in excess, for some positions, of 1,000 resumes. People want to come to DHS. Now, not all 

1,000 applicants may be specifically qualified for the positions they 

are applying for, but I take that as a very good sign. People are 

interested in coming to DHS. They recognize the good work that we 

are doing. And yes, it is making our job harder to look through the 

15 

applications of very qualified individuals, but that is going to make 

us better as a Department, and I think that is partly as a result 

of the leadership at the Department, the very strong affinity for the 

mission, and the work. The work is very challenging. We are not 

having trouble attracting candidates. 

Senator JOHNSON. Would that be across the board at DHS? I am 

particularly interested in hearing the problems of having career 

government employees make the leap up to the SES level. 

Mr. BORRAS. Well, one of the reasons why we focus so strongly 

on consolidating these leadership development programs in the Department is to have a single way in which we train leaders so that 

the SES corps has the mobility to be able to move between the 

components and headquarters. We want to facilitate that movement in the Department. We want the leadership to be mobile and 

transparent. 

In addition to the consolidation and development of one single 

SES Candidate Development Program, we have just finished a very 

extensive recruitment within the Department, and quite frankly, it 

was a tremendous challenge to pick the first cohort because there 

were so many applicants from within the Department that want to 

be a part of the SES program. So we are getting, again, Senator, 

great enthusiasm to come forward and do that, and I think that is 

a real tribute to the work that is being done at the Department 

and the leadership. 

Senator JOHNSON. So you are not seeing, then, a reluctance from 

members at the GS level to move into the SES? 

Mr. BORRAS. No, we are not. I am not seeing that, Senator. 

Senator JOHNSON. Well, good. That is good news. 

What is the most important thing you have learned in your year 

in the position? 

Mr. BORRAS. Well, I think the most important thing that I have 

learned, which is very much at the heart of my approach and my 

style, is to engage with the workforce, to interact with the employees, with the leadership. I am very active in getting out and understanding. I have a strong need to understand. For example, during 

the budget process, we spent a lot of time looking at investments 

on the border. Prior to the budget process, I went out and visited. 

I walked the border. I do not come from a border State. I wanted 

to better understand the issues at the border, but I wanted to talk 

to the men and women who work on the border, the Border Patrol 

agents, the field operation personnel, to understand their needs. 

What is it that they need from the organization to better do their 

job? 

It gave me some very important insight, doing these kinds of 

things. I did the same thing with ICE, the Secret Service, and the 

Coast Guard to better understand the operational side. So when we 

are looking at, for example, how we plan to bring in 1,000 new Border Patrol agents as a result of, again, the fine money that we got 

from the Congress to support our border initiatives, I wanted to 

better understand from the men and women on the border, what 

was that going to mean to them? How were they going to be able 

to absorb 1,000 Border Patrol agents, not just what do the supervisors in Washington think, but what do the field superintendents 

think? What do the rank and file think? What was going to be the 

16 

back-room support? What kind of support was going to be needed 

to be able to add 1,000 additional agents? 

I learned a lot from that. First of all, they did not see where we 

would have the space, the facilities to be able to put 1,000 new people. They did not feel that we had adequate administrative support 

to support 1,000 new agents. These concerns were very enlightening. These were very good, verifiable, and quantifiable statements I learned from walking the field, and I was able then during 

the budget process to be able to quiz Customs and Border Protection, for example, on what they were doing, how they were looking 

at their management budget, how they were looking at their management administration of Border Patrol and how that was going 

to reinforce the operational side and whether or not they were 

going to be able to have the resources to support those additional 

agents. 

I think it is important that the Under Secretary not just be a 

member of leadership and sit in Washington and manage, but understand the operational needs so that we can better support them. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you, Senator Johnson. We will do 

a second round of 5 minutes each, if that works. 

Senator Akaka earlier spoke briefly with you, Mr. Borras, about 

acquisition and procurement, and as you know, the Department 

has had some really significant cost overruns. Acquisition management is a major challenge for the Department because contracting, 

as you discussed with Senator Collins, is a significant portion of 

the DHS annual budget, roughly one-third of the budget. So I want 

to ask you, based on this year of experience you have, what do you 

believe the key challenges are that face DHS with respect to acquisition management and what have been any initiatives that you 

have taken to improve the Department’s acquisition management? 

Mr. BORRAS. Mr. Chairman, I will try to be brief on this answer. 

This is probably one of the areas I spend the most of my time on, 

which is better understanding and working on fixing the acquisition process. 

The first thing I should say is that my predecessors left behind 

a very good foundation in the establishment of MD-102.1, which 

was the acquisition framework that was put in place to be able to 

govern the Department’s acquisition investments. Keep in mind, 

that was formally adopted by the Department in January 2010, so 

my immediate predecessor, Elaine Duke, who worked very hard to 

put that in place, had very little time to actually implement the 

process. So, again, by result of my showing up at that time, I have 

had to implement the tenets of MD-102.1. 

The important piece of that was establishing a governance framework for the Department, which we call the Acquisition Review 

Board, to be able to examine at very specific points in the acquisition process the health of an acquisition program, to be able to 

identify problems with acquisitions, and to be able to, hopefully, 

correct these issues. I have personally chaired over 35 acquisition 

review boards in my year on the job. 

I stated to this Committee when I was first nominated that in 

the acquisition area, I had two fundamental concerns: How well do 

we identify capabilities and build requirements to be able to buy 

17 

goods and services, and then how well do we execute upon award 

of those contracts the management of those acquisitions. I would 

say to you, and both the IG and GAO have identified this, those 

were the two fundamental problems that DHS faces, and that is 

what I have dedicated the bulk of my one year on the job, to address that, and I would love the opportunity to go on in detail, but 

it is a very comprehensive approach, but that is what I have spent 

the bulk of my year, that along with financial management, addressing the acquisition liabilities. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Good. That is a good beginning. 

A final question about agency Chief Information Officers. As I 

am sure you know, a report by the IG at DHS found that the Chief 

Information Officer of the Secret Service was ‘‘not well positioned 

as a member of the Director’s management team’’ and ‘‘does not 

play a significant role in overseeing IT systems development and 

acquisition efforts.’’ So this is concerning, that 15 years after the 

creation of the CIO in the Clinger-Cohen Act, we are still seeing 

CIOs effectively buried in some agencies’ organizational systems. 

This is particularly true because of the billions of dollars spent on 

IT investments at the Department and throughout our government. 

So I wanted to ask you what, if any, steps you have taken to 

make certain that component CIOs have the necessary authorities 

to ensure that IT projects and decisions support individual agencies, but also department-wide objectives. 

Mr. BORRAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Certainly, the Under 

Secretary for Management has a strong role, but I should say the 

management of IT within the Department of Homeland Security 

begins first and foremost with the Department of Homeland Security’s Chief Information Officer, Richard Spires, who is also, by the 

way, the Vice Chairman of the Federal CIO Council. We have probably the finest CIO in the Federal Government who is completely 

focused on better understanding how we manage our IT assets, 

looking at the relationship between his office, the Departmental 

CIO, and the component CIOs. 

Specifically, with regard to the Secret Service, you raise a very 

important question as to whether or not the CIO is properly enfranchised to be able to manage the IT investments in the Secret 

Service, and, I might add, the Secretary has asked me, and as a 

result I have asked our CIO, to prioritize what we are doing regarding Secret Service IT modernization. That is very important to 

the Secretary. Therefore, it is very important to me. 

We have a brand new CIO at the Secret Service, who our CIO, 

Mr. Spires, helped interview and helped select. And keep in mind 

that the CIO evaluates and is responsible for performance measures and indicators for every one of the IT professionals, the CIOs 

in all of the component agencies. 

But we are doing more than that. It is the way that we are now 

governing the Department’s IT investments, partly through my Acquisition Investment Initiatives, that have expanded the use of 

much more aggressive oversight through the use of executive steering committees. So we are very much focused on the issue you have 

raised. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Excellent. Thank you. Senator Collins. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

18 

Mr. Borras, I want to follow up on the exchange you just had 

with the Chairman about IT projects. According to OMB’s IT Dashboard, more than half—some 49 out of 90 investments—of the 

major information technology investments at DHS are in troubled 

status. That means they are either at risk for a significant cost 

overrun, a schedule delay, or performance problems. IT spending is 

a major cost driver at DHS. DHS is slated to spend more than $6 

billion on IT investments in fiscal year 2011 alone. It is very troubling, therefore, that more than half of those projects are in serious 

trouble. 

One critical tool that can help to ensure proper oversight and 

management of these investments is an effective acquisition review 

process. I know for the last several years DHS has been trying to 

strengthen that process. When do you expect that we are going to 

start seeing significant improvements in the performance of IT 

projects at the Department? 

Mr. BORRAS. Senator, I appreciate the question. I appreciate the 

leadership this Committee, particularly you and the Chairman, 

have placed on the proper management of IT investments. It is a 

$6 billion investment we are making on an annual basis at the Department of Homeland Security. 

I look at GAO’s top 15 list of what they call poorly running acquisition investments, and most of those are IT investments. A few 

things I would say about that: First of all, most of those IT investments that are poorly functioning or have cost overruns, in many 

cases, they predate the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security, like the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) 

program, for example, which has been going on, I believe, since 

1993. 

So what have we done about ACE? I will give you a perfect example. We are calling it a strategic time-out. We have suspended 

ACE. What we need to do and why we need strong governance is 

we need to be able to review these projects, and then we need to 

be able to make corrective action. It is one thing to identify poorly 

functioning IT programs. What are we going to do to help it get 

better, or if it cannot get better, what are we going to do to end 

it? 

In the case of ACE, what we have done is establish a strategic 

time-out. We are taking a look at instituting a modular approach, 

which is consistent with Vivek Kundra’s 25-point plan for IT. So 

we have much more modular, agile development. We have put 

them on a plan to be able to deliver M1, a one module this calendar 

year. And we are working very aggressively. The CIO and the IT 

community are working very aggressively. We have stood up an executive steering committee in many of these programs to expand 

our oversight. 

My basic concern within the Department, and I have talked a lot 

about this, relative to acquisition oversight is MD-102.1 put in 

place the Acquisition Review Board, which meets at pre-determined 

acquisition gateposts—during the requirements phase—and my 

problem is, these are so wide apart, sometimes a year or more 

apart, how are we providing oversight to an acquisition program, 

whether it be IT or otherwise, in between? And that is what I have 

19 

been focusing on. How do we develop more aggressive oversight in 

between those milestones? 

Senator COLLINS. Well, I would suggest that there is a more fundamental problem, and that is a failure to define requirements well 

up front, to define what is the need for the procurement, how is 

it going to be used, could off-the-shelf technology suffice. I am 

shocked that there is a 1993 IT project that still has not been completed or abandoned. I cannot imagine that the requirements have 

not changed during that time or that the technology that they 

started with is not obsolete. So I think it is not enough to monitor 

along the way, though that is absolutely critical and I commend 

you for the steps you are taking, but you have to better define what 

your needs are and establish the requirements up front. 

Let me just very quickly touch on one other issue. It is a very 

quick question. The move to St. Elizabeths, that consolidation of 

headquarters is the largest Federal construction project since the 

Pentagon. Is this still a priority for the Department, given your 

budget constraints? 

Mr. BORRAS. Well, it is absolutely a priority, Senator. Again, I 

know this Committee has supported the Department of Homeland 

Security tremendously. The good news is that project is meeting its 

major milestones. The Coast Guard facility that we are building, it 

is on budget, it is actually slightly ahead of schedule. It is one of 

the cleanest construction sites I have ever seen, and I have spent 

10 years in the construction business. But that is an indication of 

good management, good planning, good safety. It is a well-run site. 

I have been a strong advocate for that. I have met with the Appropriations Committee both in the Senate and the House to 

strongly advocate for the continuation, the maintenance of our 

funding stream. We need to meet those major milestones and continue to fund these projects so that we do not have major lapses. 

I am very concerned about costs increasing as a result of delays. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Senator Collins. Senator Akaka. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Borras, I want to commend the Balanced Workforce Initiative to correct the Department’s Federal employee contractor mix. 

As you know, the Committee is vitally interested in the contractors 

in DHS. Will you please discuss the Department’s efforts to ensure 

that inherently governmental positions are brought in-house and 

make a comment on whether this initiative is having a positive effect in your workforce. I also gather that your Chief Human Capital Officer has a part in heading the Balanced Workforce Initiative, and I am interested in how it is working out. 

Mr. BORRAS. Senator, the Balanced Workforce Strategy, which 

we developed into an actual program that we manage, actually is 

managed out of the Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer because we want to maintain the focus on the employee part of it. 

There are two pieces to that. 

One part is we have looked at and we have received—we have 

worked with OGC, we have worked with OMB, we have worked 

with OFPP—good, consistent Federal guidance on the definition of 

inherently governmental and non-inherently governmental. So we 

have applied that standard. 

20 

The second part of it is, and when I joined the Department, this 

was my concern relative to the Balanced Workforce Strategy, that 

it not be viewed strictly as a contractor conversion exercise but 

that we use this opportunity while we were making these assessments on the use of contractors to also look at whether a contract 

has met its useful life—so evaluating the ongoing need for a contract. 

I started my career in the State of Florida, which had strong 

sunset legislation, and I bring that orientation with me. You have 

to constantly ask, is this contract still viable? Is it still necessary? 

Is the requirement from which we initiated this contract, to get to 

the Senator’s point, good requirements, is it still valid? If not, kill 

it. 

So we are doing two things. We have been having a very aggressive approach to do this conversion where we eliminate contractors 

and we hire Federal employees to be able to manage functions, and 

we are looking at whether or not the contractor is still viable. So 

it is a two-prong approach. 

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Borras, over the past several years, the Department has worked to create an integrated financial management tool known as Transformation and Systems Consolidation 

(TASC), which has grown to include acquisition and asset management. I understand that because of a contractor’s protest, the contract for this project is once again halted. What are the Department’s plans for moving forward on integrated financial management, and should we expect to see additional changes to the TASC 

contract? 

Mr. BORRAS. Thank you for the question, Senator. The Department is in great need, I would say almost dire need, to have an 

integrated enterprise financial management system to be able to 

better manage the Department. We are a Department, as has been 

said before, of over 200,000 employees, a top line budget of approaching $56 billion, and we do not have a consolidated, integrated financial management system that allows decisionmakers to 

be better informed on a timely basis and the Department to be able 

to respond to Congress for financial information on a timely basis. 

It is a severe liability for the Department. So getting that initiative 

in place is fundamental, both to our integrated strategy and to the 

health of the Department. 

Specifically with regard to TASC—the procurement for TASC 

went out in 2009. This was not the first attempt at trying to create 

a consolidated management function for the Department. We have 

had several other failed attempts. This current one has been riddled with protests. There were several protests before we were able 

to finally award the contract this past November. 

I think this speaks very well to the issue that Senator Collins 

raised about the need to have good requirements and to understand the marketplace and what does that marketplace deliver, 

whether or not the marketplace can deliver an integrated financial 

management system, whether one exists in the Federal workplace 

currently. 

GAO in their ruling found that there were missteps along the 

way, both in terms of how the requirements were interpreted and 

how it was evaluated, and GAO has sustained those protests. We 

21 

are currently taking a look. We are analyzing GAO’s statement on 

those protests, and we are looking at OMB’s guidelines—it is very 

important that we evaluate OMB’s guidelines for the implementation of financial management systems. We are looking at both of 

those things to be able to chart a new course. 

So I am not in a position today to be able to specifically identify 

what the Department’s next course of action will be. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much for your responses, Mr. 

Borras. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Senator Akaka. Senator Johnson. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Borras, in your first round of questioning, you talked about 

what you learned down at the border, and I was just recently at 

the border entry down at Nogales, and I have learned a few things 

myself. I know we obviously are concerned about border security, 

but one of my concerns is the staffing levels of Customs and Border 

Protection in those ports. I mean, we are expanding the size of the 

ports, but I am afraid we are not staffing them to the extent that 

we need to. I want to get your thoughts on that and to what extent 

are you involved in that ratio between the Customs Service agents 

versus the Border Patrol agents. 

Mr. BORRAS. Senator, you raise a very important question, and 

it leads me back to something that I talked about in my policy 

questions, which is workforce planning. Workforce planning is a 

major deficit in the Department. One of the reasons why we often 

have delays in hiring—and I will specifically address your question—is because of the inability to do good workforce planning, to 

be able to project in the out years, what are your specific workforce 

needs? How will you staff that? How will you pay for that? How 

will you introduce that? How will you train the employees? How 

will you equip employees? Good workforce planning is so key to 

being able to have a well-functioning, well-run department. 

So specifically with regard to the border, the Border Patrol since 

2006 has nearly doubled in size. I would say to you from a management standpoint that it is very difficult to even assess whether 

Customs and Border Protection has been able to sufficiently absorb 

that tremendous growth in that short period of time. So we are 

working very closely with Customs and Border Protection. And, in 

fact, they are adopting some of the same things that I am doing 

at the departmental level relative to much more in-depth budget 

reviews, base budget reviews and analysis within Customs and 

Border Protection because they recognize they have grown so fast, 

so quickly, and have had to absorb so many people that they have 

not taken the time to assess the current management health of 

their organization and if they have adequate resources, as I stated 

earlier and as you have found out in your work. Do they have the 

proper facilities to be able to house the employees? Do they have 

the proper administrative support to support the employees in the 

field? Do they have the necessary equipment and the replacement 

equipment to adequately equip our employees on the border? So 

these are very fundamental questions. This is not something that 

we currently do extremely well. 

The Balanced Workforce Initiative, for example, will migrate to 

a Workforce Planning Initiative at the conclusion of this run. That 

22 

is how important it is. We are going to maintain this focus. We are 

going to develop at the headquarters level a Department-wide 

Workforce Planning Initiative because we need to do a better job 

of managing that. 

Senator JOHNSON. But specifically, talk about the ratio of new 

personnel going into the Customs Service versus the Border Patrol 

because, again, it seems like we have poured additional personnel 

into the Border Patrol, and I am afraid we are not putting the resources into the ports of entry. 

Mr. BORRAS. I do not specifically know what those numbers are, 

Senator, but I will be glad to get the information back to you on 

what those ratios are. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thanks. Earlier, you talked about reducing 

the number of audit qualifications. Can you tell me specifically 

which ones were removed and how you managed to do that? 

Mr. BORRAS. Well, there is an effort that we run—most Federal 

agencies run it—there are Internal Controls Over Financial Reporting (ICOFR) and there are also Internal Controls Over Operations 

(ICOOP). When I first joined the Department, I personally chaired 

those sessions with our staff from the financial audit. These are 

meetings that we hold with all of the components so that I can 

begin to assess for myself what were some of the vulnerabilities 

and liabilities. 

For example, in ICOOP, one of the things that we look for is how 

well are we staffed because if we are improperly staffed, from a diagnostic standpoint, that tells me that we might have a problem 

with segregation of duties, which is a fundamental tenet of good financial controls. 

We also look at the authority matrix. Again, when an organization is understaffed, do they have the good segregation of duties? 

Do they have the proper authority matrices in place to be able to 

say who authorizes a certain activity, which can lead to a material 

weakness. 

So I personally chaired these meetings because I wanted to do 

things. I wanted to better understand the health of the financial 

operation myself, and I wanted to send a message that this was 

such a priority to me, I was willing to spend countless hours, Senator, chairing and facilitating these meetings to send the message 

that we are going to be looking at their financial operations, that 

it is important to me, and that the staff has my support and backing to be able to address this. 

It begins with leadership, Senator, and making that leadership 

statement and making that leadership commitment allowed the 

staff, the Chief Financial Officer staff working with the component 

staff, to begin to specifically drill down on reducing these material 

weaknesses in our audit findings. I also have new personnel in 

audit, as well. We are going to continue to do this, and I have announced this publicly within the Department, for our financial 

grants, as well, which is another area that requires strong, aggressive oversight. 

I can get back to you with the specific data on those material 

weaknesses that have changed, and I can give you a historical 

sense of how they have evolved over time, over the life of the Department. 

23 

Senator JOHNSON. Well, maybe we can do those during those 

monthly meetings, which I would like to reinitiate. 

Mr. BORRAS. I would look forward to that. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Senator Johnson. Senator Carper, welcome. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome. We are happy to see you. Thank you for joining us 

today. I understand your family is with you. 

Mr. BORRAS. Yes, Senator. 

Senator CARPER. And you have already introduced them, have 

you not? 

Mr. BORRAS. Yes, I have. 

Senator CARPER. Are they right behind you there? 

Mr. BORRAS. Well, yes, I have my wife, Ivelisse, and—— 

Senator CARPER. Is that your daughter? [Laughter.] 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. You do not have to answer that question. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BORRAS. I am not going to answer that question. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Well, glad you are here. I am happy 

that your family is willing to share you with all of us and with our 

country. 

A couple of questions, if I could. I am privileged to serve on this 

Committee and privileged to serve as chairman of a subcommittee 

that deals with, among other things, Federal financial management. We held a hearing here about a week or two ago, Senator 

Brown, Senator Coburn, and others, and we focused on major 

weapons system cost overruns and how much we are overspending 

for major weapons systems. The amount we were spending in the 

year 2000 was $42 billion. Last year, it was $402 billion. 

Former President Bush signed into law a number of years ago 

in his first term an improper payments law. It basically says that 

Federal agencies have to start keeping track of their improper payments, mostly overpayments, not so much fraud, just accounting 

mistakes, and some agencies did. Some did not. The Department 

of Homeland Security was new. They had a hard time complying 

with the improper payments law. 

Senator Coburn and I authored legislation with the support of 

Members of this Committee, including Senator Akaka and Senator 

Lieberman, that said that not only do we want agencies to keep 

track of their improper payments, we want them to report their improper payments. We want them to stop making improper payments. We want them to go out and recover the improper payments 

that they have made. We had in the law a directive that says Federal managers are going to be evaluated, at least in part, on whether or not they are complying with that law to report improper payments, to stop making them, and to recover them. 

The Department of Homeland Security does not have a good 

record in terms of collecting improper payments. It is not a little 

bit of money. We had a hearing in the last month that said the improper payments for the last fiscal year was $125 billion. That does 

not include the Department of Defense (DOD). I am not sure if it 

24 

includes the Department of Homeland Security. I have asked my 

staff to check. Apparently, DHS is not reporting improper payments. At least that is what I am told as of now. And so the $125 

billion in improper payments from last year does not include DOD. 

It does not include DHS. And I do not think it includes Medicare 

Part D. I am not sure if it includes Medicare Part C, but a big piece 

of the Federal Government is out there that is not actually reporting. 

And here is my question of you, and it may not be a fair question, but I will ask it anyway. When is DHS going to start reporting and complying with the improper payments law? 

Mr. BORRAS. Well, two things. First of all, Senator, thank you so 

much for being here—— 

Senator CARPER. And we are glad you are here. 

Mr. BORRAS. Thank you. I appreciate that. Thank you for recognizing my family. 

Senator CARPER. Sure. 

Mr. BORRAS. That is very kind of you. 

I recently addressed and have been very much focused on this. 

The major liability the Department of Homeland Security has with 

respect to financial reporting is the lack of financial systems that 

allow us to be able to retrieve that information in a timely manner 

and then report it with any level of fidelity. We simply do not have 

it. 

As you well know and this Committee well knows because you 

have supported greatly the Department of Homeland Security in 

their effort to build an integrated financial management system, 

we do not have a system. Senator, the first memorandum that I 

signed as Under Secretary a year ago when I joined this Department was to do a data call. That is, to do a manual retrieval of information to be able to report. I had to give the components 60 

days to collect the information, 30 days to analyze it, and then we 

hoped in the next 30 days after that we would know enough about 

what we could report on. 

It is a major deficiency. It is a major liability that I am personally committed to addressing. We do not have good information, for 

example, as it relates to our grants. Our ability to report on our 

grants, to look at obligated and unobligated balances, is virtually 

nonexistent. Again, these are manual retrievals of information that 

we have to conduct. Within the Coast Guard, we have multiple financial systems. Senator, I am sure you understand and probably 

are dismayed by the fact that the Coast Guard runs two general 

ledger systems, and they do not talk to each other. 

This is very important to me. This is a major liability. We have 

addressed this in our integrated comprehensive strategic plan that 

we have submitted to GAO. It is going to take time to build that 

capacity in the Department of Homeland Security. We are investigating ways in which we can build some work-arounds to be able 

to retrieve data. Of course, as you well know, one of the major concerns we all would have is what is the integrity of the data that 

is in the system right now. 

Senator CARPER. Let me just interrupt you. I do not mean to be 

rude, but I only have so much time, and let me just come back to 

the question I raised about improper payments. It is a huge probVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:04 Feb 14, 2012 Jkt 67125 PO 00000 Frm 000028 Fmt 06633 Sfmt 06633 P:\DOCS\67125.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
25 

lem. Most agencies are now complying. DOD is not. We are all over 

them. DHS is not. And we are just going to be, not in an obnoxious 

way but in a persistent way, all over your Department to make 

sure that you comply with the law. We need you to help set an example for others, including the Department of Defense. If you can 

stand up as a new department and comply with the law in a reasonable amount of time, that is a good example for a Department 

that has been around for 60 years and still is not complying. 

Could I ask one more question, Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Please go right ahead. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks so much. I will be brief. The Department of Homeland Security has undergone a number of reorganizations, even though it is not that old. Many of the components, such 

as the Secret Service, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, 

the Coast Guard, to name a few, are not, as you said, yet fully integrated. Many of their employees do not think of themselves as Department of Homeland Security employees, which has contributed 

to an increased bureaucracy and a tough way of getting things 

done. 

Secretary Napolitano’s new motto, ‘‘One DHS,’’ has been, I think, 

a promising start. You have been in your role now for about a year. 

I am glad you are there. I think most of us feel that way. Could 

you discuss for us, just in a couple of minutes, how you have been 

working to integrate these legacy components into the Department 

architecture to be one team? 

And second, would you talk about a couple of management surprises that you were forced to tackle when starting the job? Just 

mention one or two. Thank you. 

Mr. BORRAS. The first thing I would like to do, Senator, in response to your first question, because somebody did slip me a little 

note, is say that we are complying with the Improper Payments Information Act and we do report. So DHS does report its improper 

payments. 

Senator CARPER. Since when? Go ahead, whoever is behind you, 

because my staff just said that you were not. Can you give me 

some idea—when do you think you started complying? 

Mr. BORRAS. Last year. 

Senator CARPER. Last year? Good. So for fiscal year 2010? 

Mr. BORRAS. Yes. 

Senator CARPER. Well, that is good. So part of that $125 billion 

was DHS. Well, that is a good start. Now we want to ratchet it 

down, and the other thing we want to do is recover as best we can 

some of those improper payments. 

Mr. BORRAS. Yes. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you for that information. Go ahead and 

answer my second question, please. 

Mr. BORRAS. I do not know that I have necessarily found anything in management that surprised me. Maybe what has surprised me is the extent of some of the problems because I certainly 

had a good orientation coming in. I read all the GAO reports and 

the IG reports. I was very familiar with the management deficiencies. 

The Secretary prioritized for me getting off the High-Risk List 

for management integration, focusing on building a common archiVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:04 Feb 14, 2012 Jkt 67125 PO 00000 Frm 000029 Fmt 06633 Sfmt 06633 P:\DOCS\67125.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
26 

tecture around the Department on how we manage this Department, to start to build an enterprise management function, and 

that is what we have done, Senator. Before your arrival, I showcased our comprehensive strategic plan, which we submitted to 

GAO back in January. GAO said it is the most comprehensive document on management that the Department has submitted. It is 

very specific with specific comprehensive action plan items with 

timelines on which we will be judged on our progress. 

The Secretary constantly talks about the need for One DHS. One 

DHS does not mean destroying the identity of the Customs and 

Border Protection or the Secret Service, but how do we unify the 

Department in ways that are meaningful and that contribute to the 

Department’s health. For me, it is focusing on the acquisition process to make sure that we have standards on how we acquire goods 

and services in the Department, the way we manage our financial 

systems, the need for not only financial systems, which I have 

talked about and which are major deficiencies, but having common 

skill sets around the Department, and that talks to how we train 

our financial management community. 

And it is focusing on the way we treat our people, our human 

capital issues, and the way we are building new training in the Department. I mentioned earlier, Senator, that we have eliminated 

redundant Candidate Development Programs for SES, and now we 

only have one. We went from four to one. 

Again, these are very strategic, small but very important steps 

toward unifying the Department around a common training architecture, a common financial architecture, a common acquisition architecture, and a common human capital architecture. 

Senator CARPER. Well, I applaud those efforts, and I applaud the 

Secretary, whom I am a big fan of, and I would just urge you to 

continue to do those things. One of our jobs is to do oversight and 

to make sure that the things that you all are attempting to do, you 

actually complete and you tell us what we can do to help. 

So thank you. Thank you for your service this last year. My hope 

is that you will be confirmed to serve not on an interim basis, but 

on a more permanent basis. 

Mr. BORRAS. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator CARPER. Very nice to see you. Thank you. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Well, thanks, Senator Carper. 

Thanks, Mr. Borras. I appreciate your testimony today. I think 

you have been really quite impressive. Your answers have been informed. I suppose, obviously, you have the benefit of having had a 

year on the job, but even allowing for that, nonetheless, you show 

a detailed involvement in the management of the Department, 

which I have found impressive, and I hope anybody who has any 

lingering doubts about your nomination will find reassuring. 

We are going to leave the record of this hearing open until noon 

tomorrow for any additional statements and questions. It is my intention to bring your nomination before our Committee at the 

markup scheduled for next week. I am hopeful, obviously, and confident that at the Committee level, we will confirm your nomination unanimously, and then we will go to the floor, and I hope we 

are successful there, as well. 

27 

Thank you very much. I thank all the family and friends who are 

with you. 

With that, the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:34 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(29) 

A P P E N D I X 


67125.001
30 


67125.002
31 


67125.003
32 


67125.004
33 


67125.005
34 


67125.006
35 


67125.007
36 


67125.008
37 


67125.009
38 


67125.010
39 


67125.011
40 


67125.012
41 


67125.013
42 


67125.014
43 


67125.015
44 


67125.016
45 


67125.017
46 


67125.018
47 


67125.019
48 


67125.020
49 


67125.021
50 


67125.022
51 


67125.023
52 


67125.024
53 


67125.025
54 


67125.026
55 


67125.027
56 


67125.028
57 


67125.029
58 


67125.030
59 


67125.031
60 


67125.032
61 


67125.033
62 


67125.034
63 


67125.035
64 


67125.036
65 


67125.037
66 


67125.038
67 


67125.039
68 


67125.040
69 


67125.041
70 


67125.042
71 


67125.043
72 


67125.044
73 


67125.045
74 


67125.046
75 


67125.047
76 


67125.048
77 


67125.049
78 


67125.050
79 


67125.051
80 


67125.052
81 


67125.053
82 


67125.054
83 


67125.055
84 


67125.056
85 


67125.057
86 


67125.058
87 


67125.059
88 


67125.060
89 


67125.061
90 


67125.062
91 


67125.063
92 


67125.064
93 


67125.065
94 


67125.066
95 


67125.067
96 


67125.068
97 


67125.069
98 


67125.070
99 


67125.071
100 


67125.072
101 


67125.073
102 


67125.074
103 


67125.075
104 


67125.076
105 


67125.077
106 


67125.078
107 


67125.079
108 


67125.080
109 


67125.081
110 


67125.082
111 


67125.083
112 


67125.084
113 


67125.085
114 


67125.086
115 


67125.087
116 


67125.088
117 


67125.089
118 

Æ 


67125.090