U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

59–010 

" ! SENATE 

114TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

REPORT

2016

114–247 

Calendar No. 454 

DHS IT DUPLICATION REDUCTION 

ACT OF 2015 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

TO ACCOMPANY

S. 1620 

TO REDUCE DUPLICATION OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AT 

THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, AND FOR OTHER 

PURPOSES 

APRIL 28, 2016.—Ordered to be printed 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGE:\Seals\Congress.#13
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin, Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

BEN SASSE, Nebraska 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

CHRISTOPHER R. HIXON, Staff Director 

GABRIELLE D’ADAMO SINGER, Chief Counsel 

DAVID S. LUCKEY, Director of Homeland Security 

WILLIAM H.W. MCKENNA, Chief Counsel for Homeland Security 

GABRIELLE A. BATKIN, Minority Staff Director 

JOHN P. KILVINGTON, Minority Deputy Staff Director 

MARY BETH SCHULTZ, Minority Chief Counsel 

MATTHEW R. GROTE, Minority Senior Professional Staff Member 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Chief Clerk 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
Calendar No. 454 

114TH CONGRESS SENATE REPORT " ! 2d Session 114–247 

DHS IT DUPLICATION REDUCTION ACT OF 2015 

APRIL 28, 2016.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. JOHNSON, from the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 1620] 

The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, 

to which was referred the bill (S. 1620), to reduce duplication of information technology at the Department of Homeland Security, and 

for other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably 

thereon without amendment and recommends that the bill do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

I. Purpose and Summary .................................................................................. 1 

II. Background and Need for the Legislation ................................................... 2 

III. Legislative History ......................................................................................... 3 

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis .......................................................................... 3 

V. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact .................................................................. 3 

VI. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ................................................ 3 

VII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ........................... 4 

I. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

The purpose of S.1620, the DHS IT Duplication Reduction Act of 

2015, is to identify duplicative information technology at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS or ‘‘the Department’’) and require the Department to identify a strategy for reducing identified 

duplication. This bill requires the Chief Information Officer (CIO) 

of DHS to submit a report within 90 days of enactment to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

and the House Committee on Homeland Security detailing the 

number of information systems at DHS, an assessment of the systems exhibiting duplication or fragmentation, a strategy for reducing duplicative systems, and a methodology for determining which 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

1 Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107–296. 

2See, e.g., President’s Budget Request FY 2004, Department of Homeland Security. 3See, e.g., id. at 144. 4See, e.g., id. at 159. 5 E.g., U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., Office of Inspector General, OIG–12–82, DHS Information 

Technology Management Has Improved, But Challenges Remain (2012). 6 U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO–15–296, Information Technology: Additional OMB and 

Agency Actions Needed To Ensure Portfolio Savings Are Realized and Effectively Tracked 1 

(2015). 7 Id. 

8 Id. at 9. The Other agency was the Department of Defense. Id. 9 Id. 

systems should be eliminated when duplication or fragmentation 

are present. 

II. BACKGROUND AND THE NEED FOR LEGISLATION

Congress established DHS in 2002 with the enactment of the 

Homeland Security Act of 2002.1 The Department began largely as 

a conglomeration of 22 separate government agencies, each with its 

own existing capital, infrastructure, policies and procedures.2 Included within those agencies were also multiple separate information technology (IT) systems. Thus the combination of these agencies through the creation of DHS was both an opportunity and a 

challenge within the context of IT systems—an opportunity to 

achieve cost savings through unifying common IT needs Department-wide, and a challenge in phasing out institutionalized legacy 

IT systems at the agencies, many of which long predate the Department’s creation.3 In many ways, the creation of DHS made it 

a microcosm of the broader Executive Branch from the perspective 

of shared IT services and reducing duplicative IT systems.4

The Department has made some efforts to consolidate duplicative 

IT systems and prevent duplication in IT systems among its agencies, but it has not been wholly successful.5 First launched in 2012, 

the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) PortfolioStat program has the specific goal of ‘‘eliminating duplication and achieving 

savings through specific actions and time frames.’’ 6 In 2015, the 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) reviewed the second 

iteration of the PortfolioStat initiative and found DHS had significantly overestimated its projected savings from reducing IT duplication between 2013 and 2015.7 DHS was one of 26 agencies that 

GAO reviewed and one of the two at which GAO identified the 

largest discrepancies between initially projected savings and revised projected savings.8 According to the report, of the $1.4 billion 

DHS planned to save through implementing the PortfolioStat program, DHS ultimately reduced its projections to $446.67 million, a 

67 percent and nearly $1 billion reduction in savings.9

The Secretary of Homeland Security and DHS CIO must ensure 

the Department consolidates IT systems where practical, and resists pressure from components to permit exceptions to policy or individual systems where a centralized system would be sufficient. 

To provide Congress, the Department, and the public with a Department-wide picture of duplication of IT at the Department and 

to ensure that DHS reduces unnecessary duplication in IT, this bill 

would require the CIO to report within 90 days of enactment on 

duplication of IT at DHS and provide a strategy for reducing duplication that would be provided directly to Congress. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

III. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

On March 25, 2015, Representative Will Hurd introduced H.R. 

1626, the DHS IT Duplication Reduction Act of 2015. The act 

passed the House as amended by voice vote on June 23, 2015. The 

measure was received in the Senate and referred to the Committee 

on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. On June 18, 

2015, Chairman Ron Johnson introduced the Senate companion to 

the bill, S. 1620, with minor technical changes. 

The Committee considered S. 1620 at a business meeting on 

June 24, 2015. At the meeting, the Committee ordered the bill reported favorably by voice vote. Senators present for the vote were: 

Johnson, McCain, Lankford, Ayotte, Ernst, Sasse, Carper, Tester, 

Baldwin, and Heitkamp. 

IV. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE BILL, AS REPORTED

Sec. 1. Short title 

This section provides the bill’s short title, the ‘‘DHS IT Duplication Reduction Act of 2015.’’ 

Sec. 2. DHS Information technology duplication reduction 

Subsection (a) requires the CIO of DHS to submit a report to the 

Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee 

and the House Committee on Homeland Security within 90 days of 

enactment that includes: (1) the number of IT systems at DHS; (2) 

an assessment of the number of such systems exhibiting duplication or fragmentation; (3) a strategy for reducing duplicative systems; and (4) a methodology for determining which systems should 

be eliminated when duplication or fragmentation are present. 

Subsection (b) defines the terms ‘‘duplication or fragmentation’’ 

and ‘‘information technology.’’ 

Subsection (c) provides that this section shall be carried out 

using existing appropriations and that no new funds are authorized 

by this bill. 

V. EVALUATION OF REGULATORY IMPACT

Pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of 

the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee has considered 

the regulatory impact of this bill and determined that the bill will 

have no regulatory impact within the meaning of the rules. The 

Committee agrees with the Congressional Budget Office’s statement that the bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 

mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

VI. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

JULY 6, 2015. 

Hon. RON JOHNSON, 

Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 1620, the DHS IT Duplication Reduction Act of 2015. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
4 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark Grabowicz. 

Sincerely, 

KEITH HALL. 

Enclosure. 

S. 1620—DHS IT Duplication Reduction Act of 2015 

S. 1620 would require the Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS), within 90 days of the bill’s enactment, to prepare a report 

for the Congress on duplicative information technology systems in 

the department. DHS is currently carrying out activities similar to 

those required by the bill. Thus, CBO estimates that implementing 

S. 1620 would not significantly affect spending by the department. 

Enacting S. 1620 would not affect direct spending or revenues; 

therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. 

S. 1620 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would 

not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments. 

On June 3, 2015, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for H.R. 1626, 

the DHS IT Duplication Reduction Act of 2015, as ordered reported 

by the House Committee on Homeland Security on May 20, 2015. 

The two bills are identical and CBO’s estimates of budgetary effects are the same. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Mark Grabowicz. The 

estimate was approved by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant 

Director for Budget Analysis. 

VII. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE ACT, AS REPORTED

Because this legislation would not repeal or amend any provision 

of current law, it would make no changes in existing law within the 

meaning of clauses (a) and (b) of paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the 

Standing Rules of the Senate. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING