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

63–863 PDF 2011

S. Hrg. 111–940 

IMPLEMENTATION, IMPROVEMENT, AND 

SUSTAINABILITY: MANAGEMENT MATTERS AT THE 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, 

THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE, AND THE 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 

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

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs 

( 

(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 

ROLAND W. BURRIS, Illinois 

EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

MICHAEL L. ALEXANDER, Staff Director 

BRANDON L. MILHORN, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, Chief Clerk 

JOYCE WARD, Publications Clerk and GPO Detailee 

OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, THE FEDERAL 

WORKFORCE, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

ROLAND W. BURRIS, Illinois 

EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

LISA M. POWELL, Staff Director 

EVAN W. CASH, Professional Staff Member 

JENNIFER A. HEMINGWAY, Minority Staff Director 

SEAN M. STIFF, Professional Staff Member 

AARON H. WOOLF, Chief Clerk 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statement: Page 

Senator Akaka .................................................................................................. 1 

Senator Voinovich ............................................................................................. 3 

WITNESSES 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 

Jane Holl Lute, Ph.D. Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security ......................................................................................................................... 4

Cathleen A. Berrick, Managing Director, Homeland Security and Justice 

Team, U.S. Government Accountability Office .................................................. 14 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Berrick, Cathleen A.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 14 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 33 

Lute, Jane Holl, Ph.D.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 25 

APPENDIX 

Background .............................................................................................................. 53 

Charts referenced by Senator Voinovich ............................................................... 60 

(1) 

IMPLEMENTATION, IMPROVEMENT, AND 

SUSTAINABILITY: MANAGEMENT MATTERS AT 

THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT

MANAGEMENT, THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE,

AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:32 p.m., in room 

342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Akaka, 

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Akaka and Voinovich. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA 

Senator AKAKA. Good afternoon, everyone. This hearing of the 

Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia is called to order. 

I want to welcome everyone to another in our series of hearings 

on the continued efforts to improve management at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). 

Implementing and transforming the Department of Homeland 

Security from 22 separate agencies into a cohesive organization has 

been on the Government Accountability Office’s High-Risk List 

since the Department’s creation nearly 8 years ago, which this Subcommittee has followed issues closely. Unfortunately, progress has 

been slower than many expected and than any of us would like to 

see. In some ways, the agency is still struggling to forge a cohesive 

identity and to truly come together as a unified department. 

In January, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) will 

once again update its High-Risk List for the new Congress. While 

GAO has noted great progress in improving management and DHS 

has dedicated tremendous resources to this issue, I believe more 

progress will be needed before GAO will remove DHS implementation and transformation from that list. 

It is also vitally important that DHS improve the functions within the Management Directorate under the leadership of Under Secretary for Management Borras. According to Inspector General reports and GAO, systemic problems remain in important management areas, including human capital, acquisition, and financial 

management. 

2 

I have been especially concerned with DHS’s over-reliance on 

service contractors who work side by side with Federal employees. 

Some of these jobs are uncomfortably close to crossing the line into 

inherently governmental functions, which should only be performed 

by a Federal employee. I am very pleased at the efforts of the agency, especially the Chief Human Capital Officer (CHCO), in working 

to address this issue and right-size the workforce mix. 

Improving acquisition management is also vital to preventing 

waste, fraud, and abuse at the Department. Many high-cost 

projects have been initiated with too little analysis, planning, and 

follow-up, costing millions of taxpayer dollars and impacting the 

agency’s mission. One of the most high-profile examples has been 

the Secure Border Initiative electronic fence, known as SBInet. 

After long delays, cost overruns, inadequate performance, and frequently evolving goals, DHS is beginning to get this project under 

control. 

Financial management has also been an ongoing problem since 

the Department’s formation. Many DHS components still use legacy financial management tools from their former agencies. Unfortunately, the Department has never been able to obtain a clean financial audit. The Department has tried to streamline its financial 

management systems, putting all components on the same system. 

However, this effort, now known as the Transformation and Systems Consolidation (TASC) has been a difficult one. TASC needs 

strong oversight, and I hope to hear about the Department’s 

progress on that today. 

DHS also must lay the groundwork to sustain good management 

of the third-largest Federal agency. Going forward, DHS must develop a comprehensive management integration plan, including 

performance measures, to ensure that the agency is meeting mission objectives and continually improving performance. Already, 

DHS has taken important steps in planning through its Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR) and the Bottom-Up Review, which the Deputy Secretary took the lead on. These documents reinforce the need to establish metrics, and I hope that the 

Department will build on those efforts. 

Finally, I want to acknowledge that this will likely be our last 

DHS management hearing with my good brother and good friend, 

our Ranking Member, Senator Voinovich. I know that this issue 

has been vitally important to him and I want to thank him for his 

efforts and say that I intend to continue to monitor this issue in 

the next Congress on his behalf. Much of the progress that has 

been made is due in part to his invaluable leadership here and on 

the Appropriations Committee, as well. 

I also want to thank the Deputy Secretary for agreeing to testify 

at this important hearing. Continued leadership and attention from 

the highest levels is always important to move this issue forward 

and make DHS one of the best managed agencies in the government. 

With that, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today 

and now would like to call on Senator Voinovich for his opening remarks. Senator Voinovich. 

3 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR VOINOVICH 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One of the things 

that I have pointed out to folks around here, particularly the 

media, is that they are not aware of some of the really good things 

that are happening in the U.S. Senate in various committees and 

how chairmen and ranking members have worked together to make 

a difference for our country. 

I have thoroughly enjoyed working with you. One of the most 

comforting things for me is that we started out about 10 years ago 

to work together and had an agenda, and after you took over as 

Chairman, we continued it. I am very pleased that you have indicated that you are going to continue to work on the Department of 

Homeland Security. Currently, I am trying to identify a Republican 

who might be as interested in this as I am to become your partner, 

because I do not think this is going to be over tomorrow or the next 

day. It is going to continue to take two or 3 years to get the Department to the point where the transformation sticks and accomplishes what we started out to do some time ago. 

I would also like to say that I thought our meeting this morning 

with Mr. Borras was worthwhile. I thought it was productive. I was 

pleased with his presentation. One of the things that stuck out, 

though, is there is a whole lot of work to implement the plan that 

he shared with us, and one of the things I would be interested in 

is to find out what GAO thinks about the plan that has been put 

in place in terms of whether it is going to meet the acquisition concerns that they have and also whether or not there are sufficient 

metrics to judge whether or not what has been prepared is actually 

going to happen. 

I would like to remind folks that this Department came into 

being in 2002. It is the largest restructuring since the Department 

of Defense was created in 1947. I was remarking this morning, it 

may be the most gigantic management or restructuring that has 

ever happened in the world. And we asked the Department to protect us from terrorism and natural disasters while addressing the 

organizational operation and cultural challenges with merging 22 

agencies. I think we all knew that the transition would take time. 

GAO reminds us that successful transformations of large organizations can take at least 5 to 7 years. I sure learned that when I was 

mayor and as Governor. 

But I am frustrated that we are into the seventh year and so 

many issues continue to plague the Department. It currently is, as 

Senator Akaka says, the third largest cabinet agency, with 220,000 

employees and an estimated 210,000 contractors, and an annual 

budget of nearly $45 billion. That is too big an entity spending too 

much money to be susceptible to waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement year after year. And unfortunately, DHS continues to 

be on GAO’s High-Risk List. 

Helping DHS’s transformation and implementation get off that 

list has been one of our top priorities during the time I have been 

in the Senate, and I was really hoping that this issue would be removed before I retired. However, as I mentioned, it does not appear 

that will be the case. It is going to take probably another 2 to 3 

years to do what we think needs to be done. 

4 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Lute appears in the Appendix on page 25. 

So today, I look forward to discussing these matters with our witnesses, in particular hearing from GAO with regard to what more 

needs to be done for DHS transformation and implementation to be 

removed from the list, and I am hopeful I will also hear from DHS 

about their plans to implement GAO’s recommendations. 

In my experience as mayor and Governor, I repeatedly observed 

that the path of organizational success lies in adopting best practices in management, including strategic planning, performance 

measurement, and effectively leveraging human capital. I know 

that DHS has adopted some such practices and in turn has made 

progress toward better management. But I also recognize that 

much remains to be done for DHS to be a cohesive, efficient, and 

effective organization. 

From our discussion today, I hope to leave here with a better understanding of how close the Department is to having that transformation and implementation plan and the time frame that the 

Department thinks it is going to need to get the job done. 

I want to thank you, Deputy Secretary Lute and Ms. Berrick, for 

appearing before our Subcommittee today and I look forward to our 

discussion. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Senator Voinovich. 

On our first panel, it is my pleasure to welcome the Honorable 

Jane Holl Lute, Deputy Secretary of the Department of Homeland 

Security. 

It is the custom of the Subcommittee to swear in the witnesses 

and I ask you to stand and raise your right hand. 

Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give this Subcommittee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, 

so help you God? 

Ms. LUTE. I do. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much. Let the record show that 

the witness answered in the affirmative. 

Secretary Lute, I want you to know that although your remarks 

are limited to 5 minutes, your full statement will be included in the 

record. So will you please proceed with your statement. 

TESTIMONY OF JANE HOLL LUTE,1 DEPUTY SECRETARY, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Ms. LUTE. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Good afternoon, 

Ranking Member Voinovich, Members of the Subcommittee, and 

thank you for this opportunity to appear before you to discuss the 

management integration efforts at the Department of Homeland 

Security. I think, Mr. Chairman, as you have noted, the Department has made significant progress in integrating and reforming 

our acquisition, financial, and human capital management while at 

the same time meeting responsibilities of our critical missions, but 

we still have a way to go. 

Secretary Napolitano has consistently stressed the need for the 

Department to operate as one DHS. To achieve that goal, we have 

instituted an ambitious series of management and efficiency reforms to ensure that DHS has the proper management structure to 

5 

succeed, can attract and retain top talent, and can build a culture 

of effectiveness and efficiency to make the Department leaner, 

smarter, and a better agency to protect our Nation. 

The broad context for these reforms derives from a major, first 

of its kind effort by the Department to align its resources with a 

comprehensive strategy to meet the Nation’s homeland security 

needs. The completion of the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review and the Bottom-Up Review which immediately followed, in 

addition to the subsequent work that we have done to shape our 

fiscal year budgets from 2012 to 2016, represents a very significant 

milestone for this Department. 

Over the past 18 months, DHS has made tremendous strides in 

integrating and reforming our acquisition, financial, and human 

capital management, but we also know that success will require additional hard work and continued support and flexibility as we 

navigate this large management enterprise. We know, too, that we 

could not do our work without the support of this Subcommittee 

and we thank you both for the support that you have given us. 

In collaboration with the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) and the Government Accountability Office, DHS has created 

an initial integration strategy in 2010 that addressed several highrisk management issues identified by GAO and outlined steps to 

improve performance across functional operations. The seven initiatives that constituted the first phase of this integration strategy, 

which I address at length in my written testimony, represent longterm cross-cutting efforts that will lead to greater management integration over time. 

But because we need to go beyond these initiatives, in May of 

this year, I directed Under Secretary for Management Rafael 

Borras to develop a comprehensive strategic management approach 

to enhance the people, structures, and processes necessary to meet 

our mission goals by integrating and aligning functional areas at 

both the Department and component levels. As you both have said, 

we need to emulate best practice and we need to have replicable 

models of success under a wide variety of conditions for every aspect of our operations. 

We have arrayed this strategy around three key themes. First, 

improve end-to-end management of the acquisition process. Second, 

strengthen financial management and reporting. Third, improve 

human capital management to ensure that we can recruit and retain high-quality people. 

In July and September, our top leadership from across the Department met to discuss how best to augment the original seen 

management integration initiatives and create more cohesive structures and processes. In addition, we discussed the best way to manage the assets, resources, and people, and the people represent our 

Department’s greatest asset. As we have consistently stated, we 

really must have the right people in the right place at the right 

time, properly resourced, to meet the expectations of the American 

people. The enhanced integration strategy has been shared with 

GAO and is being tested across the Department with many of the 

enhancement initiatives that will drive this strategy, targeted for 

implementation in fiscal year 2011. 

6 

1The charts referenced by Senator Voinovich appear in the Appendix on page 60. 

Ultimately, all DHS employees, from Border Patrol agents and 

Transportation screening officers on the front lines to the most senior executives, must understand how their roles and responsibilities contribute to the Department’s mission, and that mission is to 

help build a safe and secure, resilient place where the American 

way of life can thrive. That is the essence of Homeland Security. 

Before I close, I would like to acknowledge, Senator Voinovich, 

your steadfast commitment to the management reform and 

strengthening of this Department. I would like to thank you for 

your public service and for your engagement with us. From the 

time that we first met until this very moment, you have been consistent in urging us to seek every opportunity to improve. I thank 

you for that work, and Mr. Chairman, I thank you and the Subcommittee for the work that you have engaged with us. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today about our 

management integration and strategic planning. We have made 

significant progress in DHS and I believe we are on the right track. 

Yet we know we still have considerable work to do, and we look 

forward to working with this Subcommittee to implement these 

critical reform efforts. Thank you. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much for your statement, Secretary Lute. We will have two rounds of questions for you, Madam 

Secretary. 

In response to the GAO high-risk designation, DHS created an 

integrated strategy for high-risk management as well as corrective 

action plans to address management weaknesses. 

Has DHS taken any actions to date or implemented the integrated strategy and the corrective action plans? 

Ms. LUTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have. It may sound 

strange for me to say, but in this regard, GAO has been our best 

partner. They have been very clear with us. Last night, we received 

a very detailed outline from them of the kinds of things we need 

to do to what measure of sufficiency in order to get off the HighRisk List. This has been a high priority for me and certainly for 

the Secretary. 

We have assembled tracking mechanisms in the Department that 

identify each of the areas and each of the measurements and criteria that GAO has outlined for removal from that list, and we 

know now within each of those areas, whether it is the commitment of top leadership, resources necessary to resolve the risk area, 

validation of progress, and so on, what we need to do. We have 

made a lot of progress, as these charts show,1 but they are all not 

green dots yet and we are determined that they will be. 

Senator AKAKA. The Quadrennial Homeland Security Review and 

the Bottom-Up Review both emphasize the importance of developing performance measures to address challenges. However, neither of these reports contain measures and they do not represent 

a comprehensive strategic management plan to address GAO’s recommendations. 

Does DHS plan to issue a comprehensive strategic management 

integration plan? 

7 

Ms. LUTE. Mr. Chairman, we have had a number of plans in each 

of the management areas—human capital, as you mentioned, financial reform, acquisition reform, Information Technology (IT) reform, as well—and together, under the umbrella of the enhancements that I spoke about in my oral statement, these represent our 

management plan. They are not enough, though, and with your 

permission, I would just like to take a step back. 

The QHSR was really designed to say, what is the mission of the 

Department and how will we achieve that mission? How will we 

achieve a safe, secure, resilient place here in the United States? 

We say we have five key missions: Preventing terrorism; securing 

our borders; enforcing our immigration laws; ensuring cyber security; building national resilience. And we talk in the QHSR about 

how we will know, what are the things we need to do in each of 

those areas, in addition to other mission areas for which we have 

responsibility that support our national and homeland security. 

In turn, we talk about the objectives we are trying to achieve, 

but what you are asking about is the essential underpinnings, the 

plumbing and wiring of the successful execution of those missions, 

because in our view, the American people have a right to expect 

that we can do three things: That we can execute those missions 

that we have outlined as central to a safe and secure homeland; 

that we can run ourselves, and that we can run ourselves with the 

accountability and transparency of a respectable public sector organization; and the third thing that they can expect is that we can 

account for the resources that have been entrusted to us and demonstrate responsible financial stewardship. 

So our approach to management is mindful of the missions we 

need to accomplish, mindful of the fact that the Department of 

Homeland Security is an operational department. The vast majority of men and women who wake up to serve this country every day 

in Homeland Security are operators and they are supported by 

equally hard-working headquarters and management personnel 

who are determined to have those operations succeed. 

Senator AKAKA. Your testimony discussed the Department’s effort to create a single financial management tool, a project known 

as TASC, which has grown to include acquisition and asset management. Earlier this year, OMB ordered that all agencies halt further development of financial management systems for the time 

being. Your testimony states that you are working with OMB to 

align TASC with OMB policy. What is the current state of TASC, 

and how do you envision it changing as a result of consultation 

with OMB? 

Ms. LUTE. As you know, Mr. Chairman, well, we have had serious deficiencies in the Department with respect to our financial 

management business systems, in part due to aging legacy systems 

and the lack of integration among the systems, whether it is financial systems, asset management systems, or acquisition systems, as 

well. TASC was a program that was in progress, and as you have 

rightly noted, we are working closely with OMB to ensure that its 

implementation closely aligns to OMB’s new guidelines. 

We have established an Executive Steering Committee that is 

chaired by the Under Secretary for Management, Rafael Borras, to 

ensure that TASC stays in alignment with the high-priority busiVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:35 Apr 08, 2011 Jkt 63863 PO 00000 Frm 000011 Fmt 06633 Sfmt 06633 P:\DOCS\63863.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
8 

ness needs and that we have realistic and achievable project plans. 

We have right-sized the concept of operations to a more risk-based 

approach, and so we are tailoring its initial applications by component and by need to ensure that it will succeed. We presented an 

overview of our plans and progress to the Financial Systems Advisory Board earlier this month and we intend to stay consistent 

with the OMB guidelines that they have put in place. 

Senator AKAKA. As DHS has testified, an important part of integration and cohesion for DHS will be to consolidate the headquarters at St. Elizabeths. Can you provide an update on how work 

at St. Elizabeths is proceeding? 

Ms. LUTE. I can, Mr. Chairman. We are on time and on budget, 

which is the best news anyone can ever give when you are executing a project of this size and magnitude. Senator Voinovich mentioned that the creation of DHS was the largest public sector reorganization, perhaps in history. Certainly, the building of St. Elizabeths is the largest single public works project in Washington since 

the Pentagon. 

To date, the Department of Homeland Security and General 

Services Administration (GSA) have obligated over $1 billion, approved a master plan and phase one construction of the Coast 

Guard facility, which is underway. All of our interim milestones 

and schedule dates are being met. And next, we have created a 

plan, and we are finalizing that plan, to reduce our footprint from 

over 70 buildings, 50 facilities scattered throughout the National 

Capital Region down to under 10 by the end of fiscal year 2016. 

GSA, as you know, has determined that the creation of St. Elizabeths and the consolidation of the Department there will save over 

$600 million over the next 30 years, but as important as those savings are, we believe also, Mr. Chairman, that this will improve the 

interoperability and the integration of Department operations. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much. My time has expired. 

Senator Voinovich. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you for your nice words in terms of 

my concern for the current and future of the Department of Homeland Security. I am hoping to have an opportunity to meet with 

your Secretary before I tip my hat, but I would like to bring to your 

attention, and Mr. Chairman, this is a little bit off the subject of 

this hearing and I will get to that—the issue of immigration. With 

regard to the DREAM Act. Many of us are concerned about agriculture jobs. But I think you may have a window of opportunity between the election and the end of the year to perhaps deal with 

that. 

And the two areas that I think need to be underscored are, first, 

what you have done to secure the border. I do not think that has 

been driven home enough to the American people, and, of course, 

you know what is going on in Arizona. I am not going to get into 

that. But you have to do that. 

As the Ranking Member on the Appropriations Committee dealing with Homeland Security, we have numbers to show that there 

is no way possible without spending tons of money on Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and detention facilities to deal 

with the illegal immigrants that are here in this country. It is 

something that really needs to be addressed, and I am suggesting 

9 

that this is something that you might put on your list and even 

talk to the President about. 

Second of all, Mr. Chairman, I am probably going to take all my 

time with this, I think you are going to get recommendations out 

of the Debt Commission that the President set up that I think is 

really going to have a dramatic impact on the resources that are 

available throughout the government. I think you need to look at 

your budget to see where the money is going and take advantage 

of this opportunity, either in the omnibus bill, and we might get 

one before the end of the year, or even next year. 

But the point I am making to you is, I can show you right now 

how you can save a billion dollars in your budget a billion dollars 

that you could reallocate to some of the things you want to do. For 

example, in the current budget, you are not getting enough money 

for management. You need more. You did not get it. But I can show 

you that. 

And then, also, to take this opportunity to forthrightly look at 

things in terms of threat assessment. So much money in that budget is revenue sharing, and I will never forget after September 11, 

2001, and we formed the Department, I said, we have to be careful 

that this does not become some kind of revenue sharing thing, and 

I will show you where it has. I think that you need to get together 

with the folks there and come back and stand up and say, here is 

what we need. Here is what is relevant and here is what is not relevant, OK. 

The other thing is that you are going to have to do that because 

there are articles out today that Homeland Security is out of control, the billions of dollars that are being spent, and so forth. So 

the big light is going to shine on the Department of Homeland Security. And I think your Quadrennial Homeland Security Review 

looks at that. But the fact is, there is an interim period here, October, in which you ought to maybe be looking at that stuff. 

And the last thing is a pain that I have had that I cannot get 

information from your management over there, and I do not know 

if you know about it, I have tried to get from your Department, for 

almost a year, information back on whether or not you need the Biometric Air Exit program in DHS. And I am putting a bill in that 

says it is not necessary because that is the conclusion that I have 

gotten from talking to your people. 

But I cannot get an answer out of your Secretary, and I have 

been trying to get her on the phone today, about whether or not 

it is necessary. I put $50 million into the budget to deal with it, 

and it was not in your proposal. So my assumption is you do not 

think it is necessary. All I am asking is for DHS to come back with 

a statement, it is not needed from a cost-benefit point of view, OK? 

And we have other things that can take its place and we do not 

need it. 

What is happening now is that we are going to go back to the 

old system where it is going to take 3 percent rejection for—less 

than 3 percent—for a country to become part of the visa waiver 

program. And if you look at the countries that have come on 

through the program, they have absolutely improved the communication in terms of terrorism and other things between the United 

States and others. In fact, it would be wonderful if we could get the 

10 

countries that were on it before to reach the standards that they 

have risen to. 

In addition, from a public diplomacy point of view, it has been 

fantastic, the new countries that have come in, in terms of our relationship with them, and there are a bunch of them out there right 

now that are pining away—the Poles, for example. If we do not get 

this thing changed, their chances of coming on board to this program is probably going to take 2 to 3, maybe even 4 years. 

But I just want you to know, and I am trying to get her on the 

phone, I am just enraged that a member of the U.S. Senate who 

has tried to be a good friend of your Department and stand up for 

you cannot get a simple answer to a question that I think you 

know the answer to, but for some reason no one has got the guts 

to make it public. And I need that, because I think I could get a 

bill passed during the lame duck session by Unanimous Consent 

(UC) if I had the information from your folks that said, ‘‘You know 

what? We do not need this. It is too expensive and we have got 

something else that can take its place.’’ 

I will get to the hearing, and I have 48 seconds, but I will tell 

you what. I will give it back to the Chairman. 

Senator AKAKA. There will be a second round. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Yes. Go ahead. 

Senator AKAKA. Secretary Lute, I want to commend the Department on its effort to right-size the Federal employee to contractor 

mix. I am impressed with the results of this initiative so far. You 

testified that you are on track to eliminate 3,500 contractor positions by the end of 2010, saving nearly $1 billion in service contracts since 2009. 

Does converting these positions to Federal employees help the 

Department better accomplish its mission? And do you expect to 

extend this initiative in the coming years? 

Ms. LUTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the past, the Department has had a heavy reliance on contractors. Indeed, it was, in 

part, the deliberate staffing strategy of getting the Department up 

and running quickly. As late as December 2008, in fact, the Department was cited for not sufficiently—having sufficient numbers 

of contractors in place. 

We believe in a balanced workforce, the contractors who come to 

work for DHS every day provide valuable services for us, but we 

do believe there has to be a right-sizing and we need to look at a 

number of factors, including the performance of inherently governmental functions or closely associated to inherently governmental 

functions and other critical functions which really should be performed by Federal employees. So we will continue this examination 

of our workforce until we get it right. 

Senator AKAKA. Well, thank you for that. Can you also tell us 

what progress has been made in making sure that contractors are 

not working on any inherently governmental functions? 

Ms. LUTE. Mr. Chairman, that is precisely the screening exercise 

that we have gone through and prioritized our conversion to Federal status for those employees, for those functions. 

Senator AKAKA. Earlier this year, Madam Secretary, the Department implemented Management Directive 102 to standardize acquisition management policies and create a stronger framework for 

11 

acquisition decisionmaking. How has MD 102 been effective to date 

in improving acquisition decisions, and how does it affect ongoing 

troubled projects, such as SBInet? 

Ms. LUTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think as you were briefed 

by Under Secretary Borras this morning, we have done a lot of 

work to strengthen our acquisition reform, building on the work 

that has been done by predecessors in this Department. A number 

of the programs that we have currently began life a number of 

years ago in advance of these reforms that have been undertaken 

over the past several years. But we are determined to get a handle, 

as I mentioned, end to end in the acquisition process, beginning 

with our requirements and working through finally to life-cycle cost 

estimates which are accurate and reflective of the cost of systems 

over time and understanding how the interface of key decisions in 

the acquisition oversight process brings us better products. 

We are integrating science and technology to a greater extent. 

We are instituting acquisition career development programs. We 

are strengthening our procurement staffing. We are having regular 

portfolio reviews. Over 70 major acquisition projects have undergone acquisition review boards since 2009. All of the major tier one 

and tier two programs have undergone this review. There are procurement management reviews, management certification processes, and strategic sourcing boards that now meet in the areas of 

IT, for example, to ensure that our acquisition is on track. 

Senator AKAKA. The DHS Performance Improvement Officer falls 

under the agency’s Chief Financial Officer (CFO). Performance improvement and measures are among GAO’s top concerns, and they 

are important outside of financial management, as well. Why is the 

Performance Officer under the CFO, and should this position be 

more prominent within the Management Directorate? 

Ms. LUTE. Mr. Chairman, I am taking a close personal interest 

in our performance measures. As we mentioned when we began the 

QHSR process, there was going to be a three-stage process: The development of the QHSR itself, a strategic guiding document; the 

Bottom-Up Review, which was going to evaluate—and did—the 

performance of the Department and the activities of the Department against those things that we said were most important to do 

in the QHSR; and then build the 2012 budget presentation and 

2012 to 2016 Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) 

in a way that reflects the priorities based on the activities of the 

Department in the strategic context laid out by the QHSR. 

In addition to that, we had some plumbing and wiring of our own 

we needed to do. We needed to align our account structure so that 

we could compare personnel costs and cost components. It is hard 

to talk about an integrated department if we do not count personnel or acquisition and investment or O and M costs in the same 

way, and we have realigned that with OMB’s help and the help of 

Congress. 

In addition, we have reevaluated every single performance measure guiding the Department, every single one, and we have done 

that—we have looked at all 180-odd existing performance measures 

and we have recast them in ways that are plain language indicators of what the value proposition is in the Department for the 

12 

1The charts referenced by Senator Voinovich appear in the Appendix on page 60. 

money that is being allocated, and we think this will be a much 

more sensibilized approach to performance metrics. 

So it does not matter where this function lies in the Department, 

Mr. Chairman. I am going to keep my eye on it. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you for taking a personal interest in that. 

Senator Voinovich. 

Senator VOINOVICH. During last year’s hearing on DHS management, there seemed to be a difference of opinion between DHS and 

GAO as to what needed to be done for transformation and implementation to be removed from GAO’s High-Risk List. Our second 

witness is going to be Cathy Berrick. I was disappointed to see that 

in your written statement, there is no explicit discussion of efforts 

to have DHS transformation and implementation removed from 

GAO’s High-Risk List, which makes me wonder whether or not you 

are taking it seriously. 

The problem last year was that they did not agree on what needed to be done, and then the next thing was that they did not agree 

on the metrics to determine whether or not they did it or not. And 

one of the things I am going to try to ferret out at this hearing 

today is how close has your Department worked with GAO to agree 

on things that are necessary to get you off the High-Risk List and 

also to agree on the measures that will be taken to determine 

whether or not you have, in fact, performed them. 

It harks back to the meeting with Mr. Borras this morning. He 

has these nice charts and it looks really good—in fact, I asked him 

to give it to you, and he apparently did not—— 

Ms. LUTE. No, sir, we brought it. 

Senator VOINOVICH. You have it here? 

Ms. LUTE. Yes, sir.1

Senator VOINOVICH. Thanks very much. The issue to me is, has 

GAO looked at it? What do they think of it? And have you agreed 

on what the measurement would be? Because a lot of it looks like— 

it is the recognition, and I am not going to go into the deficiencies 

that they found. You know and I know that you have a long way 

to go in a lot of these areas. Another issue that I am concerned 

about is when they did that survey of your workers, the low morale 

that still exists over there in your Department. I am concerned 

about that. 

How much input has GAO had in this in terms of is this the way 

to get it done, and have you agreed upon the metrics? 

Ms. LUTE. So, Mr. Chairman, certainly I will let GAO speak for 

themselves, but from my perspective, I will say the following. I 

have been running things for a long time in my life, different large 

extended operating organizations of expansive size. You do not do 

management effectively without a healthy relationship with your 

audit function, and I think we have a healthy relationship with 

GAO. We do not always agree on everything. 

But we have sat down with them. I have sat down with them 

personally with my senior staff and with the seniors at GAO and 

I would say that we share a commitment to getting this right. We 

share a commitment to clarity and to understanding exactly what 

this Department has to do to get off the High-Risk List in all areas. 

13 

And so let me assure you, Senator, that on the issue of implementing and transforming the Department, we are committed to 

taking ourselves off the list. 

We believe that we have a better sense now, and as we go 

through carefully the very detailed report that GAO has just given 

us on those measures that we should take in each of these areas— 

leadership commitment, resources, independent validation, demonstrated progress over time, action planning, and metrics—that 

these are areas that we understand and we can operationalize and 

we have a healthy state of dialogue that if there is ambiguity, we 

can get it clarified so we know what we need to do. 

What Under Secretary Borras outlined for you this morning and 

what is in part here is a more effective governance tool for the acquisition process end to end, as we spoke about, to build on what 

we think is an already strengthened system in order to get to best 

practice. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Well, as I said, it would give me comfort to 

know that they have had a role of looking at this and have signed 

off and said, ‘‘That is a way to get the job done,’’ and then you 

would agree on, well, let us agree on whether we are getting it 

done, the progress that we are making, because I think that would 

go a long way to move you off the list and at least there is to be 

an understanding. 

And I also think that, in my experience, if you have disagreements, you ought to let us know about it. In other words, one of 

the things I talked to Mr. Borras about, there may be some of your 

entities that are really working by themselves and do not want to 

be part of the integrated system for financial management, for example. Maybe they should not be involved in this, and we keep 

talking, you have to get it all together. Well, maybe you can come 

back and say, ‘‘You know what? There are a couple of areas here 

where we do not need to do that. They are already in good shape 

and let us take the ones that are remaining and we will do it with 

them because they are okay.’’ I mean, that kind of candor, I think, 

is really important. 

And the last thing is the resources that you need to get the job 

done. The problem is it will always get shortchanged, and it just 

drives me crazy that more departments do not really stand up and 

start raising all kinds of you know what when we do not give you 

the resources that you need to get the job done, particularly in 

management. I mean, there seems to be a lack of appreciation in 

this body for management and the importance of what you say, 

having the right people with the right knowledge and skills at the 

right time, having given them the tools. And I think you ought to 

stand up and fight and just do not get rolled over. Just make a big 

deal out of it. Get the President involved. If I am going to get the 

job done, I have to have the tools in those departments to get the 

job done. 

So you are telling me that GAO has looked at that and understands it and thinks it can get the job done? 

Ms. LUTE. Sir, as much as I would like to put words in GAO’s 

mouth, I certainly would let them speak for themselves. What I can 

tell you is that we have had a continuing dialogue. It has been an 

honest dialogue. We are determined to know and to do what it 

14 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Berrick appears in the Appendix on page 33. 

takes to get off the High-Risk List. We are determined to know and 

do what it takes to have DHS be among the best places to work 

in the public sector. 

Our most important resource is our people, and as you have 

heard from our Human Capital Officer, we are working on a number of programs, leadership programs, workplace programs, resilience programs for our workforce, designed both to give the workers the tools they need to add value and to let them know how 

much they are valued by us. 

GAO is an important partner for us. We could not do our work 

without them. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

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

Voinovich. 

Again, I want to thank you, Secretary Lute, for appearing before 

us today and for your responses as well as your statement. I look 

forward to working with you on these concerns that we have and 

look forward to also working with the staff of DHS, as well. Thank 

you very much. 

And now I would like to call our second panel to come forward, 

Ms. Cathleen Berrick of the Government Accountability Office. 

It is the custom of this Subcommittee to swear all witnesses in, 

so please stand and raise your right hand. 

Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give this Subcommittee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, 

so help you God? 

Ms. BERRICK. I do. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Let the record show that the witness 

answered in the affirmative. 

Although your remarks are limited to 5 minutes, your full statement will be included in the record. Will you please proceed with 

your statement. 

TESTIMONY OF CATHLEEN A. BERRICK,1 MANAGING DIRECTOR, HOMELAND SECURITY AND JUSTICE ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Ms. BERRICK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Voinovich and Members of the Subcommittee. Thanks for inviting 

me to appear today to discuss the status of the integration and 

transformation of DHS. 

Shortly after the creation of DHS, as you are aware, GAO designated its implementation and transformation as high risk, in 

large part because DHS had to transform 22 agencies with their 

own management challenges into one department and the enormity 

of that effort. We also recognized that DHS faced significant challenges in building its management capacity while at the same time 

implementing its critical homeland security and other missions. 

DHS has remained on our High-Risk List since. 

My statement today addresses the challenges DHS faces in acquisition, information technology, financial management, and 

human capital management; DHS’s progress in integrating its 

management functions within and across the Department; and the 

15 

Department’s progress in addressing the issues that have contributed to GAO’s high-risk designation. 

DHS has made some important progress in strengthening its 

management functions, but needs to take additional action and 

demonstrate progress in addressing some longstanding issues within its management areas. Key among these actions is executing 

plans that they have established and demonstrating results across 

all of these areas. 

For example, our work has identified significant shortcomings in 

DHS’s ability to manage an expanding portfolio of complex acquisitions worth billions of dollars. DHS has revised its acquisition review process to include more detailed guidance and has clarified 

roles and authorities among other improvements, but DHS has not 

effectively carried out all of its policies. Our recent work found that 

over half of the major acquisition programs we reviewed awarded 

contracts without Department approval of documents essential to 

planning acquisitions and setting requirements. In addition most of 

these programs we reviewed had cost, schedule, and performance 

shortfalls. 

With respect to financial management, as you are aware, the Department has faced challenges in modernizing and integrating its 

financial management systems and has not yet implemented a consolidated Department-wide system, although it has plans to do 

that. Since DHS’s creation, the independent auditors have been unable to express an opinion on its limited scope audit of DHS’s balance sheets. 

In an effort to integrate its management functions across DHS, 

the Department has put in place a number of common policies and 

procedures within individual management areas to help vertically 

integrate the Department with the components. However, DHS has 

placed less emphasis on integrating horizontally across the Department to bring its management functions together for common processes and systems. 

DHS has also developed a plan to integrate its management 

functions, which we think is a step in the right direction and has 

a lot of positive aspects. However, the plan lacks details on how the 

initiatives cited will get DHS to the end state of management integration and what that end state is. The plan also does not address 

how the Department will measure its performance in its integration efforts or what the resource needs are and whether they will 

be available to follow through with these initiatives. 

In order to help DHS address the challenges that have contributed to the high-risk designation, we have identified and worked 

with DHS over the past year and earlier on the specific actions we 

believe they need to take to improve in these areas. Key among 

these actions is demonstrating measurable, sustainable progress 

and strengthening its management functions, such as delivering acquisition programs within established cost schedule and performance thresholds. We have worked with the Department over the 

years to address these issues and will continue to do that moving 

forward. 

Senator Voinovich and Senator Akaka, thank you very much for 

inviting GAO here today and thank you for your leadership on 

these very important issues and support for GAO’s work. 

16 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Ms. Berrick. 

An important aspect of removing an issue from the High-Risk 

List is having processes in place to make sure the agency will not 

revert back to its old ways after it has been removed. While I understand DHS transformation will likely not come off the HighRisk List for 2011, do you believe that DHS is laying the groundwork to sustain management progress in the future? 

Ms. BERRICK. Thank you, Senator. I do think DHS is laying the 

groundwork. If you look across all of the management functions, 

and acquisition is a good example, they do have good plans in place 

in a number of these areas. And while some of the plans and strategies can be improved, what we found in acquisition and IT management and other areas is that the key is implementing these 

plans and demonstrating progress and showing that it is sustainable and repeatable. 

So in addressing the Hig-Risk List and looking at DHS’s 

progress, in addition to the plans which we will continue to provide 

feedback to them on, we will be watching the implementation of 

those plans and the ability of DHS to execute and to demonstrate 

progress in each of their management areas. 

Senator AKAKA. At past hearings, GAO has emphasized the need 

for strong performance measures in order to integrate and transform the Department. In your opinion, has DHS developed sound 

performance measures? 

Ms. BERRICK. I think DHS has made some key improvements in 

their performance measures, and this is an area where GAO and 

DHS have worked together over the past few years, where GAO 

would provide input on DHS’s Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) performance measures, and based on that input, 

DHS has made some significant changes in their measures, in our 

view, that have significantly improved the measures. For example, 

they have added about 90 new measures since we began coordinating with them. They have retired about 40 measures that were 

not proving to provide them the information that they needed. And 

they also provided better descriptions in their public reporting of 

about 100 measures based on our dialogue. 

DHS is continuing to work to strengthen their measures, and 

GAO is continuing to work with them. Some of the changes that 

they are trying to make will be longer-term and it require collecting additional data, so it will take time. 

One piece of input that we provided to DHS was with respect to 

measures for integrating the Department. Although DHS added a 

lot of new measures within each of their management functions, 

there were not measures specific to management integration, and 

so that is some feedback that we have provided to DHS and would 

like to see those measures as we move forward in assessing this 

high-risk area. 

Senator AKAKA. DHS is reportedly ready to move forward with 

awarding a contract for DHS’s financial management system 

known as TASC. However, in the past, GAO has cautioned that 

DHS must have rigorous oversight in place before moving forward 

with the system consolidation. Do you believe DHS has done 

enough planning to execute TASC effectively? 

17 

Ms. BERRICK. GAO issued a report earlier this year on DHS’s 

status with respect to TASC, and essentially what we found, similar to your comments, was that we felt there was an over-reliance 

on contractors and there was not adequate oversight. The contractors were developing all of the key acquisition documents for TASC, 

including the requirements and the concept of operations, rather 

than the government developing those documents. And we also reported that we thought DHS could do more work to prepare themselves for awarding the TASC contract, for example, developing detailed implementation and migration plans and doing an inventory 

of the business processes that needed to be realigned once the contract was awarded. We issued that report about 6 months ago. We 

have not done updated work, but that is something that we will be 

looking at as we update our work for the next high-risk designation 

in January. But I do not have an update right now on the current 

status of those efforts. 

Senator AKAKA. Do you think that a single comprehensive strategic plan is necessary? 

Ms. BERRICK. I think it is—with respect to the hig-risk designation, I think it is very important to have a strategy for how the Department is going to address the high-risk designation. And actually, GAO has five general criteria when we look at any high-risk 

area, which is leadership commitment, the capacity to address the 

issues in terms of people and other resources, a corrective action 

plan or a strategy for addressing the high-risk designation, the 

ability to independently monitor and measure progress in addressing the designation, and then the last criteria is measuring results. 

So we think that having a plan for addressing the overall designation and also for making specific improvements within each of 

the management areas is very important and it is something that 

we will be continuing to look at with DHS. Now, DHS does have 

a strategy for addressing the high-risk designation that we think 

is a good start, and we have provided additional feedback and they 

are in the process of revising that strategy. So it is certainly something we will review for the high-risk update in January. 

Senator AKAKA. This morning, Senator Voinovich and I met with 

Under Secretary Borras and he briefed us on what they have been 

doing in this area. The placards that were displayed here with the 

first panel, those placards that showed how they are moving on 

that. I just want to tell you that I was impressed with it and look 

forward to continuing to work with them. So I really appreciate 

that. Senator Voinovich. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Building on that, have you ever seen that chart before? 

Ms. BERRICK. We have seen a different version of that chart. We 

were briefed that DHS is making an improvement to their original 

management integration strategy through the acquisition reform 

component and we have been briefed conceptually on how that is 

going to work, although we have not seen the details yet. Our view 

of that is we think that there are a lot of good measures and controls in that strategy. It is going to add more rigor to the acquisition process at both the front end with requirements definition and 

also at the back end with measuring cost schedule and performance 

18 

thresholds, both of which are things we have recommended that 

DHS do. 

So we think it is a good framework. We think the key is going 

to be, again, in the implementation and demonstrating on a repeatable basis that DHS can implement this policy for their major programs and meet established cost schedule and performance thresholds. 

One of the questions we had for DHS that we will have further 

conversation with them about is what is the end state of management integration. DHS has communicated to us that they are going 

to put their initial focus on acquisition reform and then they will 

have additional updates to the management integration strategy, 

which we were encouraged to hear because we think integration is 

going to cover more than just that. 

At the same time, we understand why DHS is putting their initial focus on acquisition, given the significant dollar amount tied to 

it. But we will continue to monitor DHS’s modifications to the plan, 

and there are additional efforts both in acquisition and other areas. 

Senator VOINOVICH. When we talked to Mr. Borras this morning, 

I indicated to him that it would be good if you would look at it and 

comment on whether you think it makes sense in order to deal 

with the acquisition problem. Last year, I remember during the 

hearing that there was some real disagreement. First of all, we do 

not agree with what it is that we have to do to get off the HighRisk List, and second of all, we do not agree on metrics, and I 

think I had a meeting in my office about that with some folks, can 

you guys get your act together and so forth. 

I really think it is important that you get together with DHS, 

that you look at these charts, is this the way it is going to get done, 

you agree that is what they should do, how do you intend to measure the implementation in terms of performance and metrics, and 

you used the word ‘‘repetitive,’’ that it is just not a one-shot deal, 

that it is going to occur. I think that would help greatly, because 

then a year from now you can all look at it and say, ‘‘We have 

made it—here is specifically what we did.’’ We had a little disagreement over here, but we are moving down the road and we agree 

on it. 

The other thing is that you mentioned something about resources. I should have known the answer to this a long time ago, 

but do you think that the Department of Homeland Security has 

the resources to get the job done that we have asked them to get 

done? 

Ms. BERRICK. Well, I will answer in the context of DHS’s internal 

plans, and specifically, DHS has a lot of corrective action plans and 

strategies to improve all of its management functions, and if you 

look through these plans, in almost every one, the limitation cited 

by DHS is resources. So we certainly think it is an issue for the 

Department. They have identified that in their own planning documents. And, of course, resources is one criteria that GAO looks at 

in making decisions about the high-risk designation, because if 

agencies do not have the resources, they are going to be very limited in what they can do. 

So we are going to continue to look at that and we will be asking 

DHS questions, specific questions in acquisition and other areas 

19 

about whether or not they are going to be able to implement this 

and when, based on the resources that they have available to them. 

Senator VOINOVICH. OK. The human capital part of this is a big 

deal in terms of having the folks that they need, because I think 

that is, from the point of view of appropriations—you probably 

heard when I asked the question, ‘‘If we do not give you the resources to get the job done, how can you do it? ’’ We just keep loading some of these agencies up with more and more and more and 

more, and quite frankly in many instances they do not have enough 

resources to do the job that we have given them, so we just add 

on to it. That would be a wonderful thing that GAO could do for 

appropriations. 

In terms of the impact that this has on the public and some of 

these things that we are talking about, do you have any instances 

where, because we have not had these things in place, it has cost 

us a ton of money? 

Ms. BERRICK. I think there is a significant impact on the mission 

side of DHS. If you look at major programs that they have tried 

to deploy, and you have talked about one of them, SBInet is a perfect example. The Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) 

Secure Flight program is another example. US–VISIT is another 

example, where DHS set out to develop a program to satisfy an important mission need, but because of the way that program was 

managed, it was not meeting performance expectations. They were 

not meeting cost and schedule expectations. And they were either 

delayed or were never deployed to the field. So I think there is a 

direct correlation between how well the Department is managed 

and how they can implement these management functions with 

how successful they are in implementing their missions. 

Senator VOINOVICH. You heard the question I asked Ms. Lute 

about the issue of the role of the Department of Homeland Security 

and looking at the budget in terms of some of the dollars that are 

being allocated for stuff that, frankly, from my point of view, just 

is not relevant to the mission. Specifically, I did not mention it to 

her, but the money for fire—the firefighter grants, I mean, they 

have not spent all of the money out of the 2009 budget. They have 

not spent the money in 2010 and they are asking for about $1 billion more for fire grants, and that is fine. Senator Akaka and I sent 

a press release out and we helped Hawaii get a fire engine. But 

you just have to ask yourself, what has that got to do with the role 

of the Department? Is this just revenue sharing? 

And then, also, the threat assessment. If you look at the list of 

cities that have come on, you say to yourself, how did they ever get 

on this list? Was it because Members of the Congress, the Senate, 

lobbied them to add some of these cities? Do you look at any of that 

stuff to say, this just does not fit in with the mission of the Department? 

Ms. BERRICK. We do look at those sorts of things. There are a 

couple of means. One is, every year, we do what we call a budget 

justification review of the Department of Homeland Security. We 

do this work for the Appropriations Committee and we will look at 

specific programs and prepare a two-page product that basically describes the program, what the budget request is, and whether we 

think there are questions about this request and whether it should 

20 

be reduced or rescinded or whether Congress needs to look at this. 

And so every year, we send up about 15 to 20 sheets that list specific programs and operations, and we can certainly share these 

sheets with you if this is something you would be interested in. 

Second, in the pay-as-you-go legislation, GAO was mandated to 

look across government at areas of duplication, overlap, and fragmentation, and general cost saving opportunities, and report yearly, and our first report is due in February 2011, on programs that 

could be reduced or modified to save funds. And there are a number of DHS programs that we are looking at that we will be reporting out on in this February report. 

You mentioned grants. Grants is an area that we will be talking 

about. There are lots of Homeland Security grants that have overlap. We have cited and the Inspector General (IG) has cited significant problems in grant management, overseeing the grants. You 

mentioned a lot of States being cited as having significant 

vulnerabilities in getting grants. Some grants vulnerability is held 

constant. The Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) grants are 

that way. So every State is considered to have an equal vulnerability. So grants is a big area. 

Another area is research and development, the operations of 

science and technology and how that is being managed. And there 

are also some specific programs, and just to give you an example, 

TSA has a behavior detection program where they have specially 

trained screeners in airports looking for suspicious behavior. We 

have done work that has shown that the science behind that program has not been validated and results have not been proven, yet 

TSA is requesting significant increases in that program. So, for example, that is one program that we will be talking about in both 

our budget reviews as well as the mandate that we will be reporting out in February. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Well, I would like to get in touch with you 

tomorrow or in the next couple of days and talk about that, because 

I think that the folks that would be interested in this also are the 

ones charged with figuring out how do we deal with the debt and 

how do we balance budgets. I think that they could probably benefit a great deal from the information that you folks have gathered, 

and also the Congress, because we are going to have a real challenge. From a point of view of looking at an agency from the outside, an objective point of view, it seems to me that you have done 

that and I want to find out more about it. 

Ms. BERRICK. Right. I will be happy to do that. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you, Senator Voinovich. 

Ms. Berrick, earlier this year, the Under Secretary for Management issued Management Directive 102, which aims to strengthen 

acquisition management policies across the Department. High-profile acquisitions such as Deepwater and SBInet, to name a few, 

have shown the need for improvement in this area. Do you believe 

that MD 102 goes far enough to address weaknesses in the Department’s acquisition management? 

Ms. BERRICK. We think, generally, the directive is a significant 

improvement over the prior policy and generally is what we call 

knowledge-based, which is when we look at acquisition policy, we 

21 

look at it for specific things, and that directive is consistent with 

it. Now, for managing IT investments, we think it needs to go a 

little bit further and we have talked to DHS about that and letting 

them know specifically what we think they need to do with respect 

to IT investments. But generally speaking, for regular acquisitions, 

we think the directive is good. 

The issue has really been execution. Even DHS’s prior acquisition directive, there were a lot of good aspects to it, but DHS was 

not executing that directive as it was designed. For example, under 

the current acquisition directive, we looked at programs and most 

of them had not gone through the Acquisition Review Board process. Most of them did not have Department approved requirements, 

or Department approved acquisition baselines as they were required to by the directive. Sometimes programs would go through 

the Acquisition Review Board, but the feedback from the board and 

the recommendations from the board were not followed up on. So 

the problems that the Board identified were not addressed. 

So we really think in the area of acquisition that the key is implementing the program that they have in place, and the changes 

that DHS has talked about, we think that will further strengthen 

their directive and should help them deliver acquisitions on time, 

within budget, and performance thresholds, if implemented, as designed. 

Senator AKAKA. Ms. Berrick, in past years, we had heard repeatedly that GAO ran into problems with DHS providing access to information and to DHS officials when GAO was carrying out investigations and audits. Can you update the Subcommittee on current 

relations between DHS and GAO? 

Ms. BERRICK. Thank you. GAO has had difficulty historically 

doing our work at Department of Homeland Security, and it was 

mainly due to the protocols that they had in place which required 

us to work through a series of liaisons and lawyers to get access 

to the people we needed to talk to and documents we needed. 

We are very happy to say that after about a year and a half of 

dialogue with DHS, the Department has issued a revised directive 

and instruction for working with GAO, and we provided significant 

input into the development of that protocol and its direction. It was 

issued in June of this year. We are very happy with the content 

in that protocol and instruction, and we think that if it is implemented as it is designed, it is going to result in significant improvements in our access to the Department. So we are very grateful 

that is in place. Now, it is the very early stages of that, so we will 

be monitoring to ensure that it is implemented as it is designed 

and DHS is doing the same. 

With respect to the relationship generally, I think we have a 

good relationship. We meet frequently. There is a lot of communication between GAO and DHS, not only in specific areas like performance measures and the management areas, but just generally 

at senior levels of the Department and senior levels of GAO. So we 

think we have come a very long way in our relationship. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you for that response. 

Senator Voinovich, any further questions? 

Senator VOINOVICH. As a gift to me, before I leave, I would like 

you to get in touch with the Department of Homeland Security and 

22 

Mr. Borras or whoever it is and I would like you to take the charts 

and look at it and tell me what you think of it, and second of all, 

what you and the Department think would be the way you would 

measure whether or not they were making progress in regard to 

those charts. 

Ms. BERRICK. I will be happy to do that. I think one of the discussions we will need to have with DHS is after acquisition reform, 

what additional efforts do they plan to achieve management integration and what is their vision for the end state of integration. So 

we can talk about that, as well, and we would be happy to come 

back and brief you on that. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Yes. If they would just take that little piece 

and do it and just say, ‘‘Yes, we think this is good, or if you have 

got to change, work it out and then come back.’’ And then also say, 

and we agree that the way we will measure whether we get it done 

is the following, OK? 

Ms. BERRICK. OK. 

Senator VOINOVICH. How long did we take to get the ‘‘management integration plan’’? It took forever. And we have the plan now, 

do we not? Do you agree with the plan that they came back with? 

Who developed that plan? Elaine Duke worked on that plan, but 

that came back and they finally got it. And you agree that what 

they have come back with is a good plan in terms of integration. 

Ms. BERRICK. The feedback we gave them was that we thought 

it was a good start, but it was not clear from looking at the plan, 

again, what the end state was of management integration. There 

were a lot of tactical programs listed in the plan of things that they 

would do, such as consolidating the headquarters facility. GAO has 

criteria that we use when we look at these types of plans and they 

were generally meeting that criteria within the various programs 

that they have listed. But it did not seem complete in our opinion 

in terms of how together these initiatives are going to address 

management integration. So we provided that feedback. 

Now DHS has told us that they view that plan as a first step and 

they have said that they agree with most of the input that we provided, and so they are going to make enhancements to it, and 

phase one of the enhancements is this acquisition. So we think 

they are moving in the right direction. We think they need to do 

more with the plan, which they, again, they said they would do 

through increments. So we will need to have dialogue with them 

on what these increments are to ensure we have a good understanding of what their overall strategy is. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thanks. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Senator Voinovich. 

Again, I want to say thanks to you, Ms. Berrick, for your responses. It has been valuable and it will be valuable to our work 

here in the U.S. Senate. I want to thank you and the other witness 

for appearing here today. 

As we have discussed for years, a strong focus on management 

at DHS is vital to integrating the Department, but also for our national security. More work is needed to get this issue off the HighRisk List, and I hope DHS and GAO will continue to work toward 

that goal. While this is likely Senator Voinovich’s last hearing on 

this subject, this Subcommittee will continue to build on the good 

23 

work that he has done and we have done together and keep a close 

watch on DHS management. 

Senator Voinovich, do you have any final remarks for this hearing? 

Senator VOINOVICH. I would just like to say, I really have appreciated the wonderful relationship our office has had with GAO over 

the years. I think you really do a good job and you are making a 

difference for our country. One of the things that tickles me is that 

on the list of agencies where people seem to be happy, you are 

right at the top. That makes me feel very good, because I know several years ago, you needed some more flexibilities, and Senator 

Akaka and I worked on them. So thank you for your work and pass 

the word on that the Senator from Ohio is really happy with the 

wonderful relationship he has had. There are a couple of people I 

am going to call before I leave, and one of them is Gene, your Acting Comptroller General. Thank you. 

Ms. BERRICK. Thank you very much, and GAO feels the same. 

We appreciate all of the support that both of you have had on these 

important issues and support of GAO’s work and using our work 

and analysis to help your oversight efforts. So thank you very 

much. 

Senator VOINOVICH. And I am going to be in touch with you 

about that other matter, OK? 

Ms. BERRICK. Very good. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you. 

Ms. BERRICK. Thank you. 

Senator AKAKA. I also want to thank Senator Voinovich’s staff 

and my staff for working so well together, and also with your staff, 

as well. This has really helped us in our work here in the U.S. Senate. 

The hearing record will be open for 2 weeks for additional statements or questions other Members may have pertaining to the 

hearing. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:55 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(25) 

A P P E N D I X 


63863.001
26 


63863.002
27 


63863.003
28 


63863.004
29 


63863.005
30 


63863.006
31 


63863.007
32 


63863.008
33 


63863.009
34 


63863.010
35 


63863.011
36 


63863.012
37 


63863.013
38 


63863.014
39 


63863.015
40 


63863.016
41 


63863.017
42 


63863.018
43 


63863.019
44 


63863.020
45 


63863.021
46 


63863.022
47 


63863.023
48 


63863.024
49 


63863.025
50 


63863.026
51 


63863.027
52 


63863.028
53 


63863.029
54 


63863.030
55 


63863.031
56 


63863.032
57 


63863.033
58 


63863.034
59 


63863.035
60 


63863.036
61 


63863.037
62 


63863.038
63 


63863.039
64 

Æ 


63863.040