Congressional Hearings
ENSURING EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT OPERATIONS: A REVIEW OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2020 DHS MANAGEMENT DIRECTORATE BUDGET REQUEST
Congressional Hearings
SuDoc ClassNumber: Y 4.H 75
Congress: House of Representatives
CHRG-116hhrg36399
| AUTHORITYID | CHAMBER | TYPE | COMMITTEENAME |
|---|---|---|---|
| hshm00 | H | S | Committee on Homeland Security |
[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ENSURING EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT OPERATIONS: A REVIEW OF THE FISCAL
YEAR 2020 DHS MANAGEMENT DIRECTORATE BUDGET REQUEST
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
OVERSIGHT, MANAGEMENT,
AND ACCOUNTABILITY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 3, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-10
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
___________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
36-399 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
__________
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi, Chairman
Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas Mike Rogers, Alabama
James R. Langevin, Rhode Island Peter T. King, New York
Cedric L. Richmond, Louisiana Michael T. McCaul, Texas
Donald M. Payne, Jr., New Jersey John Katko, New York
Kathleen M. Rice, New York John Ratcliffe, Texas
J. Luis Correa, California Mark Walker, North Carolina
Xochitl Torres Small, New Mexico Clay Higgins, Louisiana
Max Rose, New York Debbie Lesko, Arizona
Lauren Underwood, Illinois Mark Green, Tennessee
Elissa Slotkin, Michigan Van Taylor, Texas
Emanuel Cleaver, Missouri John Joyce, Pennsylvania
Al Green, Texas Dan Crenshaw, Texas
Yvette D. Clarke, New York Michael Guest, Mississippi
Dina Titus, Nevada
Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey
Nanette Diaz Barragan, California
Val Butler Demings, Florida
Hope Goins, Staff Director
Chris Vieson, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT, MANAGEMENT, AND ACCOUNTABILITY
Xochitl Torres Small, New Mexico, Chairwoman
Dina Titus, Nevada Dan Crenshaw, Texas, Ranking
Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey Member
Nanette Diaz Barragan, California Clay Higgins, Louisiana
Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi (ex Van Taylor, Texas
officio) Mike Rogers, Alabama (ex officio)
Lisa Canini, Subcommittee Staff Director
Katy Flynn, Minority Subcommittee Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Statements
The Honorable Xochitl Torres Small, a Representative in Congress
From the State of New Mexico, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Oversight, Management, and Accountability:
Oral Statement................................................. 1
Prepared Statement............................................. 3
The Honorable Dan Crenshaw, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Oversight,
Management, and Accountability:
Oral Statement................................................. 19
Prepared Statement............................................. 3
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Mississippi, and Chairman, Committee on
Homeland Security:
Prepared Statement............................................. 5
Witnesses
Mr. Chip Fulghum, Deputy Under Secretary for Management,
Department of Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 6
Prepared Statement............................................. 8
Mr. Chris Currie, Director, Homeland Security and Justice Team,
Government Accountability Office:
Oral Statement................................................. 10
Prepared Statement............................................. 12
Appendix
Questions From Chairwoman Xochitl Torres Small for Chip Fulghum.. 31
Questions From Chairman Bennie G. Thompson for Chip Fulghum...... 33
Questions From Ranking Member Dan Crenshaw for Chip Fulghum...... 35
Questions From Chairwoman Xochitl Torres Small for Chris Currie.. 39
Questions From Chairman Bennie G. Thompson for Chris Currie...... 41
Questions From Ranking Member Dan Crenshaw for Chris Currie...... 42
ENSURING EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT OPERATIONS: A REVIEW OF THE FISCAL
YEAR 2020 DHS MANAGEMENT DIRECTORATE BUDGET REQUEST
----------
Wednesday, April 3, 2019
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Subcommittee on Oversight, Management,
and Accountability,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:33 p.m., in
room 310, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Xochitl Torres
Small [Chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Torres Small, Titus, Barragan,
Crenshaw, Higgins, and Taylor.
Ms. Torres Small. The Subcommittee on Oversight,
Management, and Accountability will come to order. The
subcommittee is meeting today to receive testimony on the
fiscal year 2020 DHS Management Directorate budget request.
Good afternoon and welcome. I know we are just coming from
votes so we will be having more people come in as we proceed,
but I want to make sure because we have a lot to discuss so I
wanted to get started as soon as possible.
The hearing today will examine the President's budget
request for the Department of Homeland Security's Management
Directorate.
DHS Management may not grab headlines like Secret Service,
Coast Guard, Border Patrol and other operational components,
but the men and women who staff the Department's front office
are every bit as important to the vision and direction of the
DHS enterprise.
From budgeting to procurement and human resources to
information technology, the Management Directorate provides the
structure that is needed for DHS to be an effective and
efficient organization. The President's proposed budget seeks
nearly $1.6 billion for the Management Directorate in fiscal
year 2020.
This funding would allow the chief readiness support
officer to continue to consolidate Department personnel at the
St. Elizabeths campus, the largest construction project in the
Washington Metro since the Pentagon was built during World War
II.
The budget would give the chief financial officer
additional resources to overhaul the Department's woefully
outdated financial systems, so that from an accounting
standpoint at least, DHS components can work from a common
operating picture.
The budget also proposes funding for new tools the chief
human capital officer could use to recruit and retain top
cybersecurity talent, no small task for the Department that is
competing against other Federal agencies and tech companies in
Silicon Valley.
All of these projects are worthy initiatives that deserve
Federal funding. But as the Government Accountability Office,
GAO, has identified over the years, a number of existing
programs and projects with large budget requests have been
plagued by lengthy delays and repeated cost overruns spanning
multiple budget cycles.
The St. Elizabeths project, for instance, was initially set
for completion in 2016. Now, after more than $2 billion has
been spent, we are told that it won't be finished until 2026 at
the earliest, 10 years behind schedule.
The Department's financial systems modernization has faced
similar challenges. Original cost estimates for upgrades at the
three operational components--the Countering Weapons of Mass
Destruction Office, the Transportation Security Administration
and Coast Guard--were pegged at $90 million.
That work is still not complete. FSM faces additional
delays as a result of the recent Government shutdown, and the
administration is now asking for another $120 million in fiscal
year 2020.
We see the same story with the Department's Human Resources
Information Technology, HRIT program, as an investment that
began in 2003 and has made limited progress over the past 15
years. DHS has requested another $10 million for HRIT in the
fiscal year 2020 budget proposal.
I don't want to discredit these projects or their
importance. But I would like to see evidence that the
Department has learned from its past mistakes and is better
positioned in the future.
I am also concerned that the Department continues to
operate without its Quadrennial Homeland Security Review, or
QHSR, which is now 15 months overdue. While I understand that
the Management Directorate is not responsible for its delivery
to Congress, I wonder how it plans for the Department's future
and proposes a budget without a vision for the agency set forth
in a QHSR.
To both of our witnesses, I thank you for your time and
your testimony.
Mr. Fulghum, I understand that you will be leaving the
Department this summer. On behalf of this committee, I want to
thank you for your service to DHS and to our country over the
past 6\1/2\ years.
Your departure speaks to the challenges the Department
continues to face in terms of unity, vision, and morale. As we
move forward, I welcome any ideas you have for improving
cohesion across the Department and strengthening the DHS's key
management functions. I look forward to a fruitful discussion
with you this afternoon.
[The statement of Chairwoman Torres Small follows:]
Statement of Chairwoman Xochtil Torres Small
April 3, 2019
Today's hearing will examine the President's budget request for the
Department of Homeland Security's Management Directorate. DHS
Management may not grab headlines like Secret Service, Coast Guard,
Border Patrol, and other operational components, but the men and women
who staff the Department's front office are every bit as important to
the vision and direction of the DHS enterprise.
From budgeting to procurement and human resources to information
technology, the Management Directorate provides the structure that's
needed for DHS to be an effective and efficient organization. The
President's proposed budget seeks nearly $1.6 billion for the
Management Directorate in fiscal year 2020. This funding would allow
the chief readiness support officer to continue to consolidate
Department personnel at the St. Elizabeths campus--the largest
construction project in the Washington Metro since the Pentagon was
built during World War II.
The budget would give the chief financial officer additional
resources to overhaul the Department's woefully outdated financial
systems, so that from an accounting standpoint at least, DHS components
can work from a common operating picture. The budget also proposes
funding for new tools the chief human capital officer could use to
recruit and retain top cybersecurity talent--no small task for a
Department that's competing against other Federal agencies and tech
companies in Silicon Valley. All of these projects are worthy
initiatives that deserve Federal funding.
But, as the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has identified
over the years, a number of existing programs and projects, with large
budget requests, have been plagued by lengthy delays and repeated cost
overruns spanning multiple budget cycles. The St. Elizabeths project,
for instance, was initially set for completion in 2016. Now, after more
than $2 billion has been spent, we're told it won't be finished until
2026 at the earliest--10 years behind schedule.
The Department's Financial Systems Modernization (FSM) has faced
similar challenges. Original cost estimates for upgrades at three
operational components--the Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction
Office, Transportation Security Administration, and Coast Guard--were
pegged at $90 million. That work is still not complete. FSM faces
additional delays as a result of the recent government shutdown, and
the administration is now asking for another $120 million in fiscal
year 2020.
We see the same story with the Department's Human Resources
Information Technology (HRIT) program, an investment that began in 2003
and has made limited progress over the past 15 years. DHS has requested
another $10 million for HRIT in the fiscal year 2020 budget proposal. I
don't want to discredit these projects or their importance. But I would
like to see evidence that the Department has learned from its past
mistakes and is better-positioned for the future. I am also concerned
that the Department continues to operate without its Quadrennial
Homeland Security Review--or ``QHSR''--which is now 15 months overdue.
While I understand that the Management Directorate is not responsible
for its delivery to Congress, I wonder how it plans for the
Department's future and proposes a budget without a vision for the
agency set forth in a QHSR.
To both of our witnesses: I thank you for your time and testimony.
Mr. Fulghum, I understand that you will be leaving the Department this
summer. On behalf of this committee, I want to thank you for your
service to DHS over the past 6\1/2\ years. Your departure speaks to the
challenges the Department continues to face in terms of unity, vision,
and morale. I welcome any ideas you have for improving cohesion across
the Department and strengthening DHS's key management functions. And I
look forward to a fruitful discussion with both of you this afternoon.
Ms. Torres Small. We are going to be joined by the Chair
later, so I will save that recognition for later. Other Members
of the committee are reminded that under the committee rules,
opening statements may be submitted for the record.
[The statements of Ranking Member Crenshaw and Chairman
Thompson follow:]
Statement of Ranking Member Dan Crenshaw
April 3, 2019
Thank you to our witnesses for being here. I especially want to
thank Chip Fulghum for his years of service with DHS and for your
decades of uniformed service as an Air Force Officer. I, and the
Nation, are grateful for people like you who place service to country
above self. I wish you luck in your future endeavors.
The Department was created from agencies and components of numerous
other agencies with varied mission sets. At times this has made it very
difficult for DHS to work as a unified body. Each agency and component
still has its own requirements and missions, but also must find a way
to ensure the overall mission of the Department is fulfilled.
Today we will examine how DHS has been fulfilling its mission and
the struggles it has encountered as it moves toward a unified
management structure. Many large agencies have difficulties in managing
acquisitions and personnel. DHS is no exception. Since its creation,
DHS has had difficulty with developing and following policies to
prevent cost overruns and ensure that requirements are met.
DHS has been taking steps to identify efficiencies and reduce
duplication by looking for common requirements among the components. It
has also developed specific steps that must be followed in each major
acquisition. The problem seems to be oversight of these policies to
ensure that appropriate action is taken when a problem is identified.
While we examine the steps DHS has taken, we should also take this
opportunity to find out what we can do in Congress and in this
committee to assist DHS in the problems it has been encountering with
personnel, procurement, and acquisitions, and other issues necessary
for DHS to accomplish its mission.
Personnel management at DHS has presented its own unique
challenges. DHS consistently ranks at the bottom in terms of employee
morale. According to the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS), DHS
has typically had declining rates of satisfaction, however, in 2017 it
increased by 4 percent but remained level in the 2018 survey.
The most recent survey shows that while 89 percent of employees
feel their work is important, only 48 percent feel that poor
performance is dealt with appropriately and only 43 percent felt that
senior leaders generate high levels of motivation. DHS must figure out
ways to motivate its employees, and just as, or more importantly, must
be freer to hire and fire to improve the quality of employed within the
Department.
The DHS mission is too important to the National security of our
country. The management of the Department and the management of each
component need to make it a priority to improve employee morale and
treat employees fairly, while at the same time holding substandard
performers accountable.
DHS also faces challenges with hiring enough people. This is seen
most clearly in CBP, which struggles to hire and retain enough
personnel. Congressional fixes like my Anti-Border Corruption
Improvement Act and Rep. Torres-Smalls' Rural and Remote Hiring bill
are good starts to address some of these challenges.
For the last several years, DHS and GSA have been developing the
land at St. Elizabeths to create a consolidated headquarters for the
Department. The Secretary and the management of the Department are
moving into this location this week; however, there are still a number
of questions about the direction of this project in the future.
At a hearing last April, the Department committed to providing an
updated plan for the future of St. Elizabeths by the end of 2018. This
updated plan has not yet been provided yet the budget includes a
request for additional funds for this project. Since this project has
been plagued with delays and cost overruns, it makes sense for the
Department to have a solid plan before moving forward.
DHS still struggles with management of its financial systems, which
has been an on-going problem. The administration's budget includes a
request to modernize the systems for certain components of the
Department and I look forward to hearing how this project is
developing.
I recognize the unique challenges this Department has had to
struggle with since its inception and I commend the management for all
the progress that has been made toward achieving a unified DHS. We must
continue to improve, and as we say in the military, always be working
to better our position.
What this all comes down to is efficiency. Efficiency in operations
and efficiency in management. While we discuss this, we should not lose
sight of the fact that what is happening at the border is the opposite
of efficient. That may be tough for some of my colleagues to hear, but
even when at full strength DHS cannot do its job properly when we do
not act and force them into tasks that are not their mission.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today on how to
address the challenges that remain.
______
Statement of Chairman Bennie G. Thompson
April 3, 2019
It was just announced that one of the witnesses, Mr. Fulghum, will
be leaving the Department soon. Mr. Fulghum, I thank you for your
extraordinary service to DHS over the past 6\1/2\ years, and I wish you
the best in your future endeavors. I would be remiss however to not
express my concern regarding what Mr. Fulghum's departure means for the
direction of the Department. The deputy under secretary for management
(USM) alongside of the USM, oversees all aspects of the Department's
management programs, including financial, human capital, information
technology, procurement, security, and asset management. The current
USM, Ms. Claire Grady, is also performing the duties of the
Department's No. 2 official--the deputy secretary.
DHS has been without a deputy secretary for a year now--and no
nominee has been named for the position. Without a deputy secretary and
with a departing deputy USM, I am genuinely concerned about the day-to-
day management of the Department. These vacancies undoubtedly hamper
the Department's ability to run effectively and efficiently. I urge the
President to quickly nominate a deputy secretary and hope that someone
as committed as Mr. Fulghum will soon be appointed to fill his shoes.
Turning to today's hearing, this is the first hearing the committee
is conducting to examine the Trump administration's fiscal year 2020
budget request for the Department of Homeland Security. Before I
highlight specifics of the Management Directorate's budget proposal, I
must, once again, express my frustration with the Department's failure
to deliver the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review--or the QHSR. The
QHSR is a statutorily required, comprehensive examination of the
homeland security strategy of the United States. The last time the
Department produced a QHSR was in June 2014, under the Obama
administration. Under statute, the Department was to produce a new QHSR
by December 2017. More than 15 months later--and 5 years since the last
QHSR--the Trump administration has yet to supply Congress with its
vision and priorities for the Department.
In response to a question for the record, submitted after a full
committee hearing on the President's fiscal year 2019 budget request,
DHS stated that it ``recognizes the critical role the QHSR plays in
shaping the functions and priorities for the Department,'' and that it
``anticipates releasing the 2018 QHSR in early 2019 and will use the
report to support the Department's future year budget planning
efforts.'' Yet, we still do not have the QHSR. While the Management
Directorate is not specifically responsible for drafting the QHSR, I am
unsure what was used to formulate DHS's budget proposal in its absence.
I sincerely hope that the QHSR is delivered before the full committee
hearing on the overall Department budget request with Secretary Nielsen
next month.
Turning to the Management Directorate's programmatic budget
requests, I am pleased that many of the management and operational
challenges that this subcommittee has focused on for years would be
funded in the President's proposal. For example, the request seeks $5.6
million to launch a Cyber Talent Management System to enhance DHS's
efforts to attract top cyber talent. The request also seeks $224
million for the St. Elizabeths Headquarters Consolidation Project,
which was intended to consolidate DHS operations, sustain a ``One DHS''
culture, and improve Department morale. Although I do have concerns
regarding the St. Elizabeths project's continued cost overruns and
schedule delays, I am hopeful that appropriate and consistent funding
will help bring this project to fruition. On the topic of morale, for 7
years in a row DHS has ranked last among large agencies on the list of
Best Places to Work in the Federal Government.
Therefore, I fully expect that a decent portion of the $126 million
request for the Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer will be
allocated toward improving morale among DHS's more than 240,000
dedicated employees. I recently reintroduced the ``DHS MORALE Act'' to
require the development and implementation of policies related to
leadership development, employee engagement, career progression, and
other efforts to improve morale at DHS. I look forward to working with
the Chief Human Capital Officer on other efforts to address this
important issue. Last, I look forward to hearing how the Human Capital
Office plans to use its allocation to increase diversity among the
Department's workforce so that it will be more reflective of the public
it serves.
Ms. Torres Small. So I welcome our panel of witnesses and
thank them for joining us today.
Our first witness is Mr. Chip Fulghum who serves as the
deputy under secretary for management for the Department of
Homeland Security. Mr. Fulghum has served in many senior
leadership roles since joining the Department in 2012.
In his current role, along with the under secretary for
management, he oversees all aspects of the Department's
management programs, including financial, human capital,
information technology, procurement, security, and asset
management.
Next--so let us see, next we have Mr. Chris Currie who is a
director in the Government Accountability Office's Homeland
Security and Justice team. Mr. Currie has joined GAO in 2002
and currently leads the agency's work on management, National
preparedness, and emergency management issues, including
efforts to strengthen DHS Management functions.
Without objection, the witnesses' full statements will be
inserted into the record. I now ask each witness to summarize
his statements for 5 minutes, beginning with Mr. Fulghum.
STATEMENT OF CHIP FULGHUM, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY FOR
MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Fulghum. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Torres Small and
Ranking Member Crenshaw and distinguished Members of the
subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before
you today to discuss Management's fiscal year 2020 budget
request.
It is a privilege for me to sit alongside Chris Currie of
GAO as someone who I have worked closely with over the last few
years. We deeply appreciate the work that they do each and
every day for us. As I often say to GAO, GAO is like a personal
trainer to me. I may not always like the workout, but the
result always makes us better.
That is clearly evidenced by GAO's most recent GAO High-
Risk Report which shows Management functions as the only high-
risk areas to meet the majority of the criteria for removal. We
have now fully or mostly addressed 21 of the 30 outcomes and
continue to make good progress. Leadership remains steadfast in
its commitment to get off the GAO high-risk list.
Our 2020 budget request supports the priorities of the
Department built around three simple goals: Deliver excellence,
enable the mission, and foster innovation. We do this by
driving efficiency, strong stewardship, strengthening our
acquisition oversight, and leveraging the Department's buying
power. We built an integrated framework across all lines of
business to do this.
I would like to take just a couple of minutes to highlight
a few of those initiatives that are in our budget request. Good
stewardship starts with strong internal controls, reliable
financial reporting, and modern financial systems. I am proud
to say that the Department earned its sixth straight clean
opinion in its 15-year history this past year.
We continue to strengthen our internal controls over
financial reporting. We are the only Department required by law
to get a clean opinion over those internal controls.
We have driven our material weaknesses down from 10 in 2008
to 2 today with a plan to clear those by 2020. This continued
success depends on a modernized financial system. Since our
cutover from IBC in 2017, we have hit every milestone and CWMD
is now up and running in our environment.
As you stated, regrettably, while the shutdown has
unavoidably impacted the program, we still expect full
functionality of the system to deliver in the second quarter of
2020 by its quarter 1. Our continued sustained efforts to
mature the Department's acquisition process to deliver
capability and to continue to make improvements.
Our JRC is operational. All programs have approved
baselines and cost estimates. We have increased our program
reviews. We have developed better performance metrics and now
we have an acquisition program health assessment. We have
improved our cost-estimating process and now have a strategic
sourcing vehicle available for all components.
We remain focused on delivering a modern and reliable H.R.
system. Our approach to H.R. system remains the same. Strong
Departmental governance, we need to drive data, consistency,
and policy consistency.
When we update and modernize our systems we need to make
sure we are using a shared service approach that makes both
operational and business sense, all the while while reducing
redundancy, which we have continued to to.
We remain laser-focused on improving our I.T., to modernize
our aging infrastructure. Cybersecurity remains a full-contact
sport for us and we are continuing to deploy CDM, Windows 10,
and a variety of tools to improve our posture.
Our SOC optimization initiative will deliver consistent
policy tools and CONOPS for the 17 SOCs that operate within the
Department, and ultimately we will look to collocate those
SOCs.
We will continue to push for data center consolidation and
look for additional savings as well as push to get to the
cloud.
Our budget includes $224 million for the outfitting portion
to build a state-of-the-art cybersecurity and infrastructure
protection facility on the St. E's campus as we continue to
build out that campus.
We are excited to report that we began to move there on
Monday. I was one of the first ones there. So far so good. The
Secretary will be there in 2 weeks and we will finish that move
by the end of this month.
We stay focused on our larger NCR consolidation project and
our field efficiency initiatives Nation-wide to meet mission
needs, look for Federal space wherever possible, collocate and
shared services and look for long-term lease, all the while,
while reducing cost.
Finally, none of this is possible without the men and women
who serve in the Management Directorate and throughout our
functional lines of business in the Department. We will
continue to invest in our people.
Chairwoman Torres Small, thank you for the opportunity to
be here today, and I look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fulghum follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chip Fulghum
April 3, 2019
Chairwoman Torres Small, Ranking Member Crenshaw, and distinguished
Members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear
before you today to discuss the fiscal year 2020 budget request for the
Management Directorate within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
(DHS).
DHS is charged with protecting the American people, our homeland,
and our values from the many threats we face. To meet our goals, we
rely on the dedication of more than 240,000 employees in jobs ranging
from aviation and border security to emergency response and
cybersecurity. Our umbrella is wide, our duties are diverse, and our
goal is clear--keeping the Nation safe.
The Department has an expansive mission set: Preventing terrorism
and enhancing security; securing our borders; enforcing immigration
laws; securing cyber space; preserving and upholding the Nation's
prosperity and economic security; and ensuring disaster response and
resilience. The pace of innovation, our hyper connectivity, and our
digital dependence have created new paths for our enemies to exploit.
This condition results in a world where threats are more numerous, more
widely distributed, highly networked, increasingly adaptive, and
incredibly difficult to root out. The Department's fiscal year 2020
budget request is an important step in the right direction, ensuring
our men and women have the resources required to achieve our mission.
The Management Directorate is a key enabler of the DHS mission. We
ensure that operational components have the capabilities needed to
protect the homeland. We deliver excellence in mission support by
driving efficiencies, strengthening acquisition oversight, and
continuing to implement timely, common-sense policies and procedures.
We are seeking to obtain the needed human and financial resources at
the right time; deploy secure, leading-edge technology; acquire high-
quality products and services by leveraging the Department's buying
power; and secure and protect the Department's human and physical
assets from external and internal threats.
To ensure that we evolve to address ever-changing dangers and
remain effective in this area, the Management Directorate developed a
set of strategic priorities, a cross-cutting roadmap informed by the
DHS Unity of Effort initiatives and the DHS Strategic Plan. By using
these paradigms to shape all of our management functions and resource
needs, we are able to create synergies between our Lines of Business,
resulting in first-in-Government approaches to the way we manage
resources, acquire goods and services, secure systems and networks, and
attract and hire talent.
Our priorities are grouped into three goals: Achieve Operational
Excellence, Enable Mission Delivery, and Shape the Future.
Achieve Operational Excellence focuses on the Management
Directorate's operations that contribute to the Department's ability to
accomplish its mission on a daily basis. This includes serving as
stewards for funding and investments and getting the most out of our
resources; hiring, developing, and retaining employees; providing
effective and efficient business solutions; and providing modern,
reliable, and secure information technology infrastructure. In fiscal
year 2018, DHS received a clean audit opinion on its financial
statements for the sixth consecutive year and continues to strengthen
and mature internal control processes. DHS is the only Federal agency
required by law to obtain an opinion on internal controls over
financial reporting. In addition, the Department only has 2 material
weaknesses, down from 10 in 2007. In support of continued success and
good stewardship, DHS has requested $120 million in the fiscal year
2020 budget request for Financial Systems Modernization, which will
continue on-going work to improve systematic internal controls,
standardize business processes, strengthen cybersecurity, maintain
audit sustainability, and provide accurate and timely financial
reporting. The requested funding will enable the Management Directorate
to staff the Joint Program Management Office fully.
Acknowledging that our workforce is our most important asset, the
Management Directorate's fiscal year 2020 budget request asks for $10
million for Human Resource Information Technology. This funding will
advance acquisition projects to improve talent development and
training, data management and sharing, position management, employee
accountability and performance, employee relations, labor relations,
and H.R. document and records management. We are also requesting $11
million for the Cyber Talent Management System to create a new
personnel system that will provide the cyber workforce this country
needs through an update of the current classification system. By
launching this new, innovative system, the Management Directorate will
be taking full advantage of the flexibilities offered by the Border
Patrol Agent Pay Reform Act, and position DHS to compete for top talent
in the ever-changing field of cybersecurity, likely serving as a model
for future civil service reform. To further support our workforce, the
Department has also established the H.R. Academy, which provides
training and other resources to promote professional development and
exchange best practices across the DHS enterprise. Through this
collaborative effort, we are strengthening our human capital community
and in turn, increasing the Department's mission capability.
DHS also recognizes the need to deliver a safe and secure workplace
and support the use of proactive measures to identify threats before
they occur. As such, the fiscal year 2020 Management Directorate Budget
Request includes $3 million for Continuous Evaluation (CE), which will
provide continuous vetting and increase our CE information. With this
funding, Security Specialists will be able to vet 50 percent of our
cleared population on a continuous basis. In addition to CE, the
Department also monitors the workforce for insider threats, where an
employee may use his or her authorized access to knowingly or
unknowingly do harm to the security of the United States.
The second priority, Enable Mission Delivery, focuses on how we
conduct our business and covers the Management Directorate's
enterprise-wide responsibilities. This priority includes leading
effective oversight of acquisitions, leveraging the Department's buying
power through strategic sourcing and business process improvements,
engaging in procurement innovation, and implementing Department-wide
plans to enhance Line-of-Business performance.
Through our Field Efficiencies initiative, the Management
Directorate is leveraging the buying power of DHS, identifying cost-
saving and cost-avoiding approaches, such as relocating to reduce
costs, both of which will help stretch operational components' budgets.
For example, the Federal Emergency Management Agency's relocation
planning in Boston will result in a cost avoidance of $3.2 million
annually beginning in fiscal year 2020. In Seattle alone, the
integrated workplace planning is projected to avoid $200 million in
costs over a 30-year period, Department-wide.
The fiscal year 2020 budget request for the Management Directorate
includes $2 million for Field Efficiencies initiatives to continue its
comprehensive planning approach across four areas (Seattle, San Diego,
Puerto Rico, and Miami), and optimize space to meet operational and
business needs. By continuing on this path, DHS will increase
efficiencies and avoid costs by leveraging co-location opportunities,
such as the consolidation and coordination of assets and shared
services.
In addition, our National Capital Region (NCR) Consolidation effort
(which is more than just the St. Elizabeths campus) also supports this
goal by reducing costs and increasing productivity by merging scattered
teams to shared locations, like the General Services Administration's
(GSA) Regional Office Building in Southwest DC. Combined with GSA's
constant funding efforts, the Management Directorate's fiscal year 2020
budget request supports this with $224 million to outfit new
construction of a state-of-the-art facility for the Cybersecurity and
Infrastructure Security Agency at the St. Elizabeths campus while
continuing NCR lease consolidation efforts. Also in the spirit of
integration, the Office of Biometric Identity Management (OBIM) is
transitioning to the Management Directorate after the passage of the
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Act of 2018. We are
working to finalize the remaining administrative elements to complete
the transition with several functions already transferred to the
Management Directorate.
As a part of the Acquisition Innovation in Motion initiative,
designed to provide revolutionary approaches to obtaining the goods and
services the Department needs, the Management Directorate implemented
the Procurement Innovation Lab (PIL) in 2015. The PIL provides analysts
with a unique test environment for exploring and refining new
approaches to acquisition and gives teams an opportunity to put
innovation into action. Boot camps are also offered for the Federal-
wide acquisition workforce and industry to ensure that the larger
community can benefit from our experiences and lessons learned, which
have now spread throughout the Federal Government.
Over the years, the Management Directorate has made significant
improvements to the Department's acquisition process, informed by
feedback from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and driven by
common-sense oversight practices. By conducting pilots for five agile
programs, we were able to identify opportunities for making a more
streamlined and efficient acquisition process. The Management
Directorate has made several improvements including developing enhanced
metrics to monitor program performance on a quarterly basis, and has
worked with pilot programs to define business value metrics, which are
reported at each Acquisition Review Board. The Department has also
modified acquisition document templates to reduce duplication and focus
on their most important aspects, making them more useful and easier to
prepare. We also developed a tool that allows stakeholders to review
and provide input to documents, and track their status in the review
process. In addition, DHS has also improved program cost estimates by
establishing an independent cost assessment function and has adopted a
more accurate and streamlined method for developing Life-Cycle Cost
Estimates, allowing for more precise performance tracking. We have also
developed staffing models, and a template for acquisition program
office staffing.
The final strategic priority, Shape the Future, focuses on the
Management Directorate's efforts to foster innovation, encourage
responsible risk-taking, and collaborate across sectors so the
Department can take advantage of the next generation of systems and
technology. Through our Reverse Industry Days, the Department works
with its private-sector partners to gain their perspectives on the
Federal acquisition process. These interactive discussions enable
industry and Government professionals to gain a better understanding
and appreciation of their respective business processes and the impact
they have on each other. This type of dialog leads to improvements in
our acquisition process.
Also in this area is our work with small businesses. The Management
Directorate takes pride in providing an opportunity for them to work
with the Department, which is evidenced by our continued top rating by
the Small Business Administration (SBA). In 2018, DHS scored an overall
rating of ``A+'' on the SBA's Small Business Procurement Scorecard.
This is the ninth year in a row that the Department has scored an
overall rating of ``A'' or higher. Agencies that obtain an A+ have met
or exceeded 120 percent of their goals.
Stepping back and taking a holistic view of our priorities, this
framework contributes to the management integration challenges
identified in GAO's High-Risk List report. The funding priorities in
the fiscal year 2020 budget request also track closely with on-going
efforts to strengthen the Department and address GAO's High-Risk
designation. High-Risk List issues are even tracked as critical
elements within Management's priorities.
Over the years, DHS has cultivated a strong partnership with GAO
and the Homeland Security and Justice team, in particular. This
partnership fosters a common understanding of the work remaining to
resolve High-Risk List issues and allows senior leaders and experts
from both organizations to mutually set and manage expectations for
future progress. Continued engagement with GAO has been instrumental to
our long-term efforts in further strengthening DHS management
functions, increasing efficiencies, and achieving removal from the
High-Risk List. Just last month, GAO published their 2019 High-Risk
Series, which reported Strengthening Department of Homeland Security
Management Functions as the only High-Risk Area to have met the
majority of GAO's criteria for list removal. The report also
highlighted a consistently positive trend in GAO's ratings for the
Department against a set of 30 outcomes (or desired end-states
established by GAO).
Ultimately, our mission is clear and the roadmap has been set.
Funding our fiscal year 2020 budget request is critical for the
Management Directorate to remain the foundation upon which the
Department rests. Supporting Management will ensure that the operators
in the field are well-positioned to protect the homeland and the
American public.
Chairwoman Torres Small, Ranking Member Crenshaw, and distinguished
Members of the subcommittee, thank you again for the opportunity to
appear before you today. I look forward to answering your questions and
working with you on the fiscal year 2020 budget request.
Ms. Torres Small. Thank you for your testimony.
I now recognize Mr. Currie to summarize his statements for
5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF CHRIS CURRIE, DIRECTOR, HOMELAND SECURITY AND
JUSTICE TEAM, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Mr. Currie. Well, thank you very much, Chairman Torres
Small, Congressman Higgins, Congresswoman Titus, thank you. It
is always an honor to appear before this committee. I am
pleased to be here to talk about GAO's work on high-risk issues
and DHS Management.
So GAO placed DHS on the high-risk list in 2003 right when
the Department opened its doors. The reason we did that was
really two things. First of all, just the massive challenge of
trying to combine 22 separate agencies. Some of those agencies
had big management challenges in and of themselves even before
that time, into one functioning department.
The other reason is obviously that the impacts and the
implications for National security were huge, too.
So today, 16 years later, I am happy to report that there
has been tremendous progress. I want to start out by just
talking about the Department's leadership on this. At GAO we
manage 30 high-risk areas across Government, from Defense
programs to DHS to health care.
There is not a Department that is more committed to
addressing high-risk issues than DHS and part of that has to do
with their leadership, including Mr. Fulghum. They have a very
humble, committed approach to this rather than a defensive
posture and that makes all the difference in the world.
I also want to say that the committee's oversight of this
is huge, too. What we see at GAO across our high-risk areas we
monitor is that when there is strong Congressional oversight
and legislation these areas tend to get fixed much quicker. So
I think that is very important to say as well.
So what I would like to do today is talk a little bit about
the progress they have made in some areas and then just move on
to some of the areas that are keeping them on the high-risk
list.
So we and DHS basically have agreed on 30 individual
performance measures. These are the goal posts, if you will, on
what it is going to take for DHS to get off the high-risk list.
We meet twice a year and also quarterly to talk about the
progress in these areas.
So far DHS has addressed 17 of these 30 areas and they are
on their way to addressing many more or have initiated all of
them. We are down to some of the really challenging issues,
though and that is what is keeping them on the high-risk list.
So I want to talk about some of those.
First is human capital management. Over the years DHS has
made tremendous progress in bringing together a lot of its
personnel and human capital systems. Some of those were legacy
systems from agencies that existed or even didn't exist before
DHS was formed, and has done a great job doing that.
However, as you know, the committee knows, and legislation
was introduced recently on this, morale continues to be a huge
issue for DHS. I know it is a frustration of their management.
There has been some uptick and some increases in the last
couple years, but they still ranked last among large to very
large agencies across the Government. So there absolutely needs
to be continued focus and effort on that. It is not too big of
a challenge to address. We just have to keep at it.
The second piece is acquisitions. When the Department was
formed what we saw was very little discipline and oversight
mechanisms across the Department. The components of the
Department were off acquiring their own goods, there was no
integrated approach across the Department.
Since that time that has been changed. There are
disciplined processes. There are the directives and guidance
and oversight mechanisms.
What we need to see moving forward, though, is we need to
see programs successfully undergo those processes and be held
accountable. For example, we need to see cost estimation and
schedule estimation improve at the Department still.
When we last looked at the major acquisitions at DHS last
year, over half of them were still over cost and over schedule.
What happens is that creates a budget problem, a budget
shortfall for DHS in future years.
If they don't estimate correctly how much something is
going to cost, then they don't know how much to ask for and
then later on they don't have the money to cover it. So it is
kind-of a vicious cycle.
The last piece I will talk about is financial management,
which Chip talked about a lot in his opening statement. I think
it is amazing that DHS is able to get 6 straight clean audit
opinions.
That is a major accomplishment, especially considering a
lot of the manual intervention that is still required because
of the state of some of their financial management systems. I
think it shows you how hard they are working to address their
issues.
But they are going to have to continue to modernize their
financial management systems. Some of them, including FEMA's,
are over 25 years old. They are going to have to work on
getting a clean audit opinion, as he said, on internal
controls.
So that is all I wanted to talk about in my opening
statement. I appreciate the discussion and any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Currie follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chris Currie
April 3, 2019
high risk.--important progress made, but more work needed to strengthen
dhs management
gao-19-475t
Madam Chairwoman Torres Small, Ranking Member Crenshaw, and Members
of the subcommittee: I am pleased to be here today to discuss the
Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) management challenges and its
progress in addressing them. As you know, in 2002, when DHS was
created, Department leadership faced the daunting task of transforming
22 agencies--several with major management challenges--into one
Department. At that time, we recognized that the creation of DHS was an
enormous undertaking that could take years to implement, and failure to
effectively address management challenges could have serious National
security consequences. In 2003, shortly after the Department was
formed, we designated Implementing and Transforming DHS as a high-risk
area to the Federal Government. Today, the work to strengthen DHS's
management continues.
Since 2003, we have narrowed the focus of this high-risk area as
DHS has matured and evolved. In 2013, we reported that although
challenges remained for DHS across its range of missions, the
Department had made considerable progress in transforming its original
component agencies into a single Cabinet-level department. As a result,
we narrowed the scope of the high-risk area to focus on strengthening
DHS management functions (human capital, acquisition, financial
management, and information technology) and changed the name of the
high-risk area to Strengthening DHS Management Functions to reflect
this focus.
In the last decade, DHS has taken many steps to strengthen its
management including developing a more strategic approach to human
capital planning, improving acquisition process compliance, and
improving its information technology (IT) investment framework. DHS has
implemented more than 75 percent of the approximately 2,800
recommendations we have made since 2003, which have strengthened
program management and performance measurement, among other things.
However, significant challenges remain in the areas of acquisition
management and financial reporting. In May 2018, we found that many of
the acquisition programs we assessed were not on track to meet their
schedule and cost goals, as I will explain in greater detail later in
this statement.\1\ Further, components' financial management systems
and business processes need to be modernized to facilitate the
Department's ability to have ready access to reliable information for
informed decision making. We continue to closely monitor DHS's work in
these areas and regularly meet with DHS management to discuss progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ GAO, Homeland Security Acquisitions: Leveraging Programs'
Results Could Further DHS's Progress to Improve Portfolio Management,
GAO-18-339SP (Washington, DC: May 17, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our five criteria for removing areas from the High-Risk List guide
our discussions with DHS and our assessments of its progress.
Specifically, the agency must have: (1) A demonstrated strong
commitment and top leadership support to address the risks; (2) the
capacity--the people and other resources--to resolve the risks; (3) a
corrective action plan that identifies the root causes, identifies
effective solutions, and provides for substantially completing
corrective measures in the near term, including but not limited to
steps necessary to implement solutions we recommended; (4) a program
instituted to monitor and independently validate the effectiveness and
sustainability of corrective measures; and (5) the ability to
demonstrate progress in implementing corrective measures.
My statement discusses DHS's progress and remaining actions needed
to strengthen and integrate its management functions. This statement is
based on our 2019 high-risk update and other reports we issued from
February 2017 through March 2019.\2\ For these products we analyzed DHS
strategies and other documents related to the Department's efforts to
address its high-risk areas and interviewed DHS officials, among other
things. More detailed information on the scope and methodology of our
prior work can be found within each specific report. We conducted the
work on which this statement is based in accordance with generally
accepted Government auditing standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ GAO, High Risk Series: Substantial Efforts Needed to Achieve
Greater Progress on High-Risk Area, GAO-19-157SP (Washington, DC: March
6, 2019); High-Risk Series: Progress on Many High-Risk Areas, while
Substantial Efforts Needed on Others, GAO-17-317 (Washington, DC: Feb.
15, 2017); and Roundtable on Reauthorizing the Department of Homeland
Security, Statement of George A. Scott, Managing Director, Homeland
Security and Justice (Washington, DC: February 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
dhs has made important progress in strengthening its management, but
considerable work remains
DHS Has Met 3 of 5 Criteria for Removal from the High-Risk List
DHS's efforts to strengthen and integrate its acquisition, IT,
financial, and human capital management functions have resulted in the
Department meeting 3 out of 5 criteria for removal from the High-Risk
List--leadership commitment, action planning, and monitoring progress.
DHS has partially met the remaining two criteria--capacity and
demonstrated sustained progress, as shown in figure 1.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
With regard to leadership commitment, DHS's top leadership,
including the Secretary and deputy secretary of Homeland Security, has
continued to demonstrate commitment and support for addressing the
Department's management challenges. They have also taken actions to
institutionalize this commitment to help ensure the long-term success
of the Department's efforts. One such effort is the under secretary for
management's Integrated Priorities initiative to strengthen the
integration of DHS's business operations across the Department. During
monthly leadership meetings with the under secretary for management,
the Department's chief executive officers have been providing status
updates on their respective actions to address this high-risk
designation. Furthermore, top DHS leaders, such as the under secretary
for management and the Department's chief executive officers, routinely
meet with GAO management to discuss progress on high-risk areas.
With regard to having an action plan and monitoring effectiveness,
in January 2011, DHS produced its first Integrated Strategy for High-
Risk Management and has issued 14 updated versions, most recently in
September 2018. The September 2018 strategy describes DHS's progress to
date, planned corrective actions to further strengthen its management
functions, and includes performance measures to monitor key management
initiatives. DHS's Management Directorate leads this on-going effort
and DHS's strategy and approach, if effectively implemented and
sustained, provides a path for DHS to be removed from our High-Risk
List.
DHS has partially met the criteria for capacity but needs to make
additional progress identifying and allocating resources in certain
areas--namely acquisition, IT, and financial management--to fully
demonstrate its capacity. DHS has analyzed components' acquisition
program staffing assessments but has yet to conduct an in-depth
analysis across components or develop a plan to address any gaps. With
regard to IT staffing, DHS has not fully identified or reported to
Congress or the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) on its Department-
wide cybersecurity specialty areas of critical needs, such as
cybersecurity management or incident response, as required by law.\3\
Additionally, DHS's financial statement auditor has identified several
capacity-related issues, including resource limitations and inadequate
management and staff training, as causes for the material weaknesses
reported.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In February 2018, we recommended that DHS take steps to ensure
that: (1) Its cybersecurity workforce procedures identify position
vacancies and responsibilities, (2) cybersecurity workforce data are
complete and accurate, and (3) plans for reporting critical needs are
developed. DHS concurred and stated it planned to provide further
evidence addressing the recommendations. GAO, Cybersecurity Workforce:
Urgent Need for DHS to Take Actions to Identify Its Position and
Critical Skill Requirements, GAO-18-175 (Washington, DC: February 6,
2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final criterion is demonstrated progress, which remains
partially met. In 2010, we identified, and DHS agreed, that achieving
30 specific outcomes in the areas of acquisition management, IT
management, financial management, human capital management, and
management integration would be critical to addressing the Department's
management challenges. As such, these 30 outcomes became the key
criteria by which we gauge DHS's demonstrated progress.
We reported in March 2019 that DHS has fully addressed 17 of the 30
needed outcomes, mostly addressed 4, partially addressed 6, and
initiated actions to address the remaining 3, as shown in table 1.
TABLE 1.--GAO ASSESSMENT OF DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS) PROGRESS ACROSS MANAGEMENT AREAS, AS OF GAO'S
MARCH 2019 HIGH-RISK REPORT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Partially
Fully Mostly Initiated
Key Management Function addressed addressed addressed **** Total
* ** ***
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acquisition management................................... 2 2 1 ......... 5
Information technology management........................ 5 1 ......... ......... 6
Financial management..................................... 2 ......... 3 3 8
Human capital management................................. 5 1 1 ......... 7
Management integration................................... 3 ......... 1 ......... 4
Total.............................................. 17 4 6 3 30
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO analysis of DHS documents, interviews, and prior GAO reports./GAO-19-475T
* ``Fully addressed'': Outcome is fully addressed.
** ``Mostly addressed'': Progress is significant and a small amount of work remains.
*** ``Partially addressed'': Progress is measurable, but significant work remains.
**** ``Initiated'': Activities have been initiated to address the outcome, but it is too early to report
progress.
In the last 2 years, DHS has made particular progress in the areas
of human capital and IT management. Specifically, since 2017 DHS has
taken steps to fully address 4 outcomes. The Department fully addressed
two key human capital outcomes by: (1) Demonstrating that components
are basing hiring decisions and promotions on human capital
competencies and (2) strengthening employee engagement efforts. In
addition, in the last 2 years DHS has fully addressed two IT outcomes
by: (1) Providing on-going oversight and support to troubled IT
investments to help improve their cost, schedule, and performance; and
(2) demonstrating significant progress in implementing its IT strategic
workforce planning initiative.
Important progress and remaining work in all of the five key areas
include:
Acquisition management.--DHS continues to face challenges in
funding its acquisition portfolio. In May 2018, we found that
recent enhancements to DHS's acquisition management, resource
allocation, and requirements policies largely reflect key
portfolio management practices.\4\ However, we also found that
of the 24 major acquisition programs we assessed with approved
schedule and cost goals, 10 were on track to meet those goals
during 2017--a decrease from 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ GAO-18-339SP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, we found that DHS's portfolio of major acquisition
programs was not affordable from fiscal years 2018 to 2022
because the planned costs exceeded the planned budget. DHS has
taken steps to strengthen acquisition requirements development
across the Department, such as reestablishing the Joint
Requirements Council in June 2014 to review and validate DHS
acquisition requirements. However, opportunities remain to
further strengthen DHS's acquisition process by, for example,
using the Joint Requirements Council to: (1) Identify
overlapping or common requirements and (2) make recommendations
to senior leadership to help ensure that DHS uses its finite
investment resources wisely and maintains a balanced portfolio
of investments that combine near-term operational improvements
with long-term strategic planning.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
IT management.--DHS has updated its approach for managing
its portfolios of IT investments across all components. As part
of the revised approach, the Department is using its capital
planning and investment control process and the Joint
Requirements Council to assess IT investments across the
Department on an on-going basis. For example, as part of its
capital planning process for the fiscal year 2020 budget, the
Office of the Chief Information Officer worked with the
components to assess each major IT investment to ensure
alignment with DHS's functional portfolios, and to identify
opportunities to share capabilities across components. This
updated approach should enable DHS to identify potentially
duplicative investments and opportunities for consolidating
investments, as well as reduce component-specific investments.
Additionally, DHS has continued to take steps to enhance its
information security program. In November 2018, the
Department's financial statement auditor reported that DHS had
made progress in correcting its prior year IT security
weaknesses. However, for the 15th consecutive year, the auditor
designated deficiencies in IT systems controls as a material
weakness for financial reporting purposes. Work also remains in
implementing our 6 open recommendations concerning DHS's
cybersecurity workforce assessment requirements.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ GAO, Cybersecurity Workforce: Urgent Need for DHS to Take
Actions to Identify Its Position and Critical Skill Requirements, GAO-
18-175 (Washington, DC: February 6, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS also faces challenges in fulfilling its pivotal role in
Government-wide cybersecurity efforts, as identified in our
Ensuring the Cybersecurity of the Nation high-risk area. DHS
has established the National Cybersecurity and Communications
Integration Center, which functions as the 24/7 cyber
monitoring, incident response, and management center for the
Federal civilian government. However, DHS has continued to be
challenged in measuring how the center is performing its
functions in accordance with mandated implementing principles.
Financial management.--DHS received a clean audit opinion on
its financial statements for 6 consecutive years--fiscal years
2013 to 2018. However, in fiscal year 2018, its auditor
reported two material weaknesses in the areas of financial
reporting and information technology controls and financial
systems, as well as instances of non-compliance with laws and
regulations. These deficiencies hamper DHS's ability to provide
reasonable assurance that its financial reporting is reliable
and the Department is in compliance with applicable laws and
regulations.
Further, DHS components' financial management systems and business
processes need to be modernized; the current systems affect the
Department's ability to have ready access to reliable
information for informed decision making. As we reported in
2017, DHS officials have faced various challenges in their
efforts to address this--lack of sufficient resources,
aggressive schedule, complex requirements, and increased costs.
Effectively modernizing financial management systems for the
Coast Guard, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and
Immigration and Customs Enforcement would help address DHS's
risk in this area.
Human capital management.--DHS has continued to strengthen
its employee engagement efforts by implementing our 2012
recommendation to establish metrics of success within
components' action plans for addressing its employee
satisfaction problems.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ GAO, Department of Homeland Security: Taking Further Action to
Better Determine Causes of Morale Problems Would Assist in Targeting
Action Plans, GAO-12-940 (Washington, DC. Published: Sept. 28, 2012.
Publicly Released: October 31, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, DHS has conducted audits to better ensure components are
basing hiring decisions and promotions on human capital
competencies. OPM's 2018 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey data
showed that in the past 2 years, DHS's score on the Employee
Engagement Index increased by 4 points--from 56 in 2016 to 60
in 2018--which was 1 point more than the Government-wide
increase over the same period. While this improvement is
notable, DHS's 2018 score ranked 20th among 20 large and very
large Federal agencies. Increasing employee engagement and
morale is critical to strengthening DHS's mission and
management functions.
Management integration.--Since 2015, DHS has focused its
efforts to address crosscutting management challenges through
the establishment and monitoring of its Integrated Priorities
initiative. The Department updated these priorities in
September 2017. Each priority includes goals, objectives, and
measurable action plans that are discussed at monthly
leadership meetings led by senior DHS officials, including the
under secretary for management. DHS needs to continue to
demonstrate sustainable progress integrating its management
functions within and across the Department.
What Remains to be Done
In closing, it is clear that significant effort is required to
build and integrate a Department as large and complex as DHS, which has
grown to more than 240,000 employees and approximately $74 billion in
budget authority. Continued progress for this high-risk area depends
primarily on addressing the remaining outcomes. In the coming years,
DHS needs to continue implementing its Integrated Strategy for High-
Risk Management to show measurable, sustainable progress in
implementing corrective actions and achieving outcomes. In doing so, it
remains important for DHS to:
maintain its current level of top leadership support and
sustained commitment to ensure continued progress in executing
its corrective actions through completion;
continue to identify the people and resources necessary to
make progress toward achieving outcomes, work to mitigate
shortfalls and prioritize initiatives as needed, and
communicate to senior leadership critical resource gaps;
continue to implement its plan for addressing this high-risk
area and periodically provide assessments of its progress to us
and Congress;
closely track and independently validate the effectiveness
and sustainability of its corrective actions, and make mid-
course adjustments as needed; and
make continued progress in achieving the 13 outcomes it has
not fully addressed and demonstrate that systems, personnel,
and policies are in place to ensure that progress can be
sustained over time.
We will continue to monitor DHS's efforts in this high-risk area to
determine if the outcomes are achieved and sustained over the long
term.
Madam Chairwoman Torres Small, Ranking Member Crenshaw, and Members
of the subcommittee, this completes my prepared statement. I would be
happy to respond to any questions you may have at this time.
Ms. Torres Small. I thank all the witnesses for their
testimony.
I will remind each Member that he or she will have 5
minutes to question the panel. I will now recognize myself for
questions.
Secretaries prior to Secretary Nielsen had visions for
integrating and unifying the Department, which I think is
critical because of the challenges that were referenced by the
panel.
For example, Secretary Napolitano coined One DHS. Secretary
Johnson developed the Unity of Effort initiative. It is unclear
what Secretary Nielsen's vision for the Department is and
whether the resources are being adequately allocated to enhance
integration and unification.
So Mr. Fulghum, what has Secretary Nielsen conveyed to you
as her vision for integrating and unifying the Department? How
is this vision being implemented through the Management
Directorate's budget request?
Mr. Fulghum. So I would start by saying the Secretary has
been very clear to us that the Unity of Effort initiatives
started under the previous administration has continued, which
really means strong centralized leadership and direction.
The processes that were put in place in 2014, 2015, and
2016 have continued. We have a strong executive corporate
structure with the Deputies' Management Action Group that looks
at all resourcing decisions as we go through the programming
and budget process. We have a strong acquisition review board
that has continued.
We stood up and maintain a Joint Requirements Council to
make sure, to Chris' point, that we get investments right up
front. So there is strong governance, first and foremost,
within the Management Directorate.
We continue to push strong CXO integration and in a variety
of different ways we have demonstrated that and continue to
demonstrate that. That is foundational to what we are doing as
a Department.
We have got to make sure that while we talk very good this
way, we have got to make sure that we continue to talk across
the lines of business and work together.
Ms. Torres Small. Thank you. I would just emphasize that
reflecting that in budget requests is important and then
delivering on those goals.
Mr. Currie, I deeply appreciated your clear-eyed assessment
and acknowledgement of the tremendous progress that has
occurred. So DHS Management continues to be on GAO's high-risk
list since 2003. That has proven helpful in holding Department
leadership accountable for improvement.
Mr. Currie, what could Congress do to continue supporting
the needed change at DHS and holding the Department accountable
for its results?
Mr. Currie. I think you said in your opening statement, I
mean, DHS Management is not a headline-grabbing issue, but it
is really critical what we are talking about is bringing the
Department together and making it function well. It is not just
management. This translates down to the mission side.
So I think, you know, hearings like this, Congressional
oversight where this issue is called out, continuing to focus
on their high-risk areas, and also codifying a lot of the
progress that has been made or the things that haven't been
done yet in legislation. That is huge as well.
Ms. Torres Small. A lot of money has been spent trying to
modernize outdated financial systems and we are not seeing the
results yet. For example, DHS has spent $52 million trying to
buy one single system for the Department before then abandoning
that concept.
Since 2012, DHS has been focused on modernizing financial
management systems for three components, Countering Weapons of
Mass Destruction's office, the Transportation Security
Administration, and the U.S. Coast Guard. We have had limited
success there.
The Department is now requesting $120 million for financial
modernization in fiscal year 2020.
Mr. Fulghum, what is your time line for finalizing the
system for modernization for CWMD, TSA, and the Coast Guard?
Mr. Fulghum. So CWMD is up and operational. It has been
operational since 2016, I believe. As for TSA and the Coast
Guard, our original schedule was to have TSA up and running at
the end of 2019 and the Coast Guard up in 2020.
Given the shutdown and the impacts of the shutdown, that is
forced a, in all likelihood, a one-quarter slip in delivering
that full functionality.
So what that means very quickly, ma'am, is is that we would
be forced to migrate TSA in the middle of the fiscal year with
thousands of open transactions. That creates too much audit
risk, so we will delay the migration another 6 months. Should
be a big cost impact, and the Coast Guard will still come up in
2020.
Ms. Torres Small. Mr. Currie, very quickly, yes or no, do
you believe the DHS is well-positioned to spend $120 million on
FSM?
Mr. Currie. The quick answer is we don't know. We haven't
assessed the $120 million request and I don't know exactly what
portion of financial management modernization that is going to
address.
But we do know this--that some, like, FEMA and ICE
specifically are still not there or rather they are still in
the discovery phase, which is in financial management terms
means that they are still trying to see how long it is going to
take to address these issues and what it is going to cost.
Ms. Torres Small. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Currie. I
apologize. My time is up.
I am glad that we are now joined by Ranking Member
Crenshaw. So I will now recognize the Ranking Member of the
subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Crenshaw for an
opening statement.
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Chairwoman. Apologies. We are
double-booked in hearings today and budget markups. So I
appreciate you-all's patience. Thank you for holding this
hearing and thank you to my colleagues for being here to
address this extremely important matter.
Thank you to our witnesses, as well, for being here. I
especially want to thank Mr. Fulghum for his years of service
with DHS and for your decades of uniformed service as an Air
Force officer.
I and the Nation are grateful for people like you who place
service to country above self, and I wish you both luck in your
future endeavors.
This Department was created from agencies and components of
numerous other agencies with varied mission sets. At times this
has made it very difficult for DHS to work as a unified body.
Each agency and component still has its own requirements and
missions, but also must find a way to ensure the overall
mission of the Department is fulfilled.
So today we are examining how DHS has been fulfilling its
mission and the struggles it has encountered as it moves toward
a unified management structure.
Many large agencies have difficulties in managing
acquisitions and personnel. DHS is no exception, of course.
Since its creation DHS has had difficulty with developing and
following policies to prevent cost overruns and ensure that
requirements are met.
Now, DHS has been taking steps to identify efficiencies and
reduce duplication by looking for common requirements among the
components. It has also developed specific steps that must be
followed in each major acquisition. The problem seems to be
oversight of these policies to ensure that appropriate action
is taken when a problem is identified.
So while we examine the steps DHS has taken, we should also
take this opportunity to find out what we can do in Congress
and in this committee to assist DHS in the problems it has been
encountering with personnel, procurement, and acquisitions and
other issues necessary for DHS to accomplish its mission.
Personnel management in DHS has presented its own unique
challenges. DHS consistently ranks at the bottom in terms of
employee morale. According to one Federal employee viewpoint
survey DHS has typically had declining rates of satisfaction.
However, in 2017 it increased by 4 percent, but remained level
in 2018.
The most recent survey shows that while 89 percent of
employees feel their work is important, as they should, only 48
percent feel that poor performance is actually dealt with
appropriately and only 43 percent felt that senior leaders
generate high levels of motivation.
The DHS must figure out ways to motivate its employees.
Just as or more importantly, must be freer to hire and fire its
employees in order to improve the quality of people within the
Department. The management of the Department and the management
of each component need to make it a priority to improve morale
and treat employees fairly while also at the same time holding
substandard performers accountable.
DHS also faces challenges with hiring enough people. This
is seen most clearly in CBP which struggled to hire and retain
enough personnel. Congressional fixes like my Anti-Border
Corruption Improvement Act and Representative Torres Small's
Rural and Remote Hiring Bill are good starts to address some of
these challenges.
For the last several years, DHS and GSA have been
developing the land at St. Elizabeths to create a consolidated
headquarters for the Department. The Secretary and the
management of the Department are moving into this location this
week.
However, there are still a number of questions about the
direction of this project in the future. At a hearing last
April, the Department committed to providing an updated plan
for the future of St. Elizabeths by the end of 2018. This
updated plan has not yet been provided, yet the budget includes
a request for additional funds for this project.
Since this project has been plagued with delays and cost
overruns it makes sense for the Department to have a solid plan
before moving forward.
DHS still struggles with management of its financial
systems, which has been an on-going problem. The
administration's budget includes a request to modernize the
systems for certain components of the Department. I look
forward to hearing how this project is developing.
I recognize the unique challenges this Department has had
to struggle with since its inception, and I commend the
management for all the progress that has been made toward
achieving a unified Department of Homeland Security. We must
continue to improve and as we say in the military, always work
to improve our forward position.
What this all comes down to is efficiency, efficiency in
operations and efficiency in management. While we discuss this
we should not lose sight of the fact that what is happening at
the border is the opposite of efficient.
That may be tough for many to hear, but it is also this is
what happens with the full strength of the Department of
Homeland Security is not adequate and it cannot do its job.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today and how
to address the challenges that remain.
I yield back. Thank you, Chairwoman.
Ms. Torres Small. OK. Thank you.
I now recognize the gentlewoman from Nevada, Ms. Titus.
Ms. Titus. Thank you very much, and thank you all for being
here.
I want to ask you about St. Elizabeths. But before I get to
that, let me ask you this. Is there any money anywhere in this
budget that the President can steal and use to build a wall?
Mr. Fulghum. We have the budget request for the wall inside
our overall budget and for $5 billion.
Ms. Titus. So they can't move any of this around?
Mr. Fulghum. Well, what we have is general transfer
authorities provided by the Congress where we can move 5
percent out and 10 percent in, subject to Congressional
notification.
Ms. Titus. OK. Do you all anticipate that will happen?
Mr. Fulghum. I haven't been asked to do any of that, ma'am.
Ms. Titus. OK, thank you. Well, back to St. Elizabeths. I,
in addition to the honor of serving on this committee, I chair
the Subcommittee of Infrastructure and Transportation that
oversees GSA and public buildings. So the problems at St.
Elizabeths are very concerning to me.
They have already been outlined, but just to put them in
perspective, it is about 10 years overdue and about $1 billion
overrun of cost.
I am glad to hear that the Secretary is moving in there
this week because we have been hearing rumors that she wasn't
going to move in there until August.
Also some of the agencies that were originally intended to
move there are now not going to fit. There is not going to be
enough room for them to go and some of the agencies that are
now overdue to move are having to engage in some very expensive
short-term leases.
I would ask you if you could address that because we
haven't gotten the report that was due to us 2 years ago, and I
don't know if there is any plan to give us that report. But I
would ask you how you deal with those leases, how expensive
they are because they are short-term?
What about the folks who aren't going to get to move to
this campus? Are they going to be nearby? How are you going to
coordinate with them since coordination seems to be the biggest
problem?
Is there any environmental-friendly LEED project
sustainability requirements going into any of this
construction?
Mr. Fulghum. OK, first and foremost, ma'am, as you said, we
are moving into the center building. DHS's portion of that
budget has been on budget. The plan moving forward is the 2020
budget request does ask for $224 million to outfit a state-of-
the-art cybersecurity facility.
Given there are such unique both I.T. requirements, as well
as security requirements, along with the fact that they are in
over 8 locations and this will allow them to consolidate, makes
a lot of sense to put them in Federal space on the campus. That
will be next, followed in all likelihood by our intelligence
function which is now sitting at the Nebraska Avenue complex.
We hope to ask for funding for that in the fiscal year 2021
request. That will allow us to get off of the Nebraska Avenue
complex and save money there and turn that back over to the
GSA.
As far as the report goes, you are 100 percent correct. It
is way overdue. We had a report that was ready but because of a
couple of budget requests that didn't go through and the fact
that we had a new administration and we thought requirements
may change, we didn't deliver it.
What I will tell you is is we have been keeping the
committee updated, their staffs updated all along the way. We
will continue to do that. We have an NCR consolidation study
that should complete by June.
That one form, that strategy along with GSA's master plan,
which is currently in the NEPA process, I believe that we
should be able to give you a good preliminary assessment of
what we are going to do, not only on St. Elizabeths, but in the
NCR in the July-August time frame.
Ms. Titus. That will give us some comparisons of what it
costs to lease as well as to build and move?
Mr. Fulghum. That is what the report requires, yes, ma'am.
Ms. Titus. How about the environmental qualities of the
building?
Mr. Fulghum. The center building?
Ms. Titus. The one, yes, that is under construction.
Mr. Fulghum. To my knowledge there are no issues with that
building environment from an environmental perspective.
Ms. Titus. Do you think it is going to be finished by 2026?
Mr. Fulghum. Well, the entire campus?
Ms. Titus. Yes.
Mr. Fulghum. So the remainder of the campus what we are
looking to do is build three more buildings out there. That is
what we have got an agreement to do. We don't want any more
adaptive reuse because, as you said, it costs too much and we
lost too much square footage.
Depending on the support of the Congress I believe that we
can, if we ask for the budget for I&A in 2021 we would have
that by 2024. The final facility out there in the 2022 budget
request and it would be built by 2025 and 2026. That would
complete what we are able to do on that campus today.
Short of getting folks to agree to demolish some more
facilities out there and things of that nature, which takes
quite a bit of time, as you well know, ma'am.
Ms. Titus. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Ms. Torres Small. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes for 5 minutes the gentleman from
Louisiana, Mr. Higgins.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Gentlemen, thank you for your service to your country. It
is quite an endeavor, the Department of Homeland Security being
formed with the intent to gather the full services of so many
agencies that have been existing sometimes with very disparate
cultures and backgrounds. To integrate that is a tremendous
task.
Mr. Currie, you mentioned in your opening statement that a
great deal of progress has been made over the course of 16
years. I support my colleagues who have mentioned that the
centralized command and control of DHS where this is an
endeavor I believe should be bipartisan and your own struggles
and efforts, both you gentlemen are noted.
Mr. Fulghum, regarding appropriations, last month this
committee marked up a bill, H.R. 1639. It was my bill that
would require Customs and Border Protection commissioner to
coordinate with your office to prepare, implement, and submit
to Congress workload staffing models, staffing and
appropriations therein are challenges.
The staffing models for Air and Marine Operations and
Border Patrol that will inform Customs and Border Protection's
review and communication of staffing shortages to Congress.
This bill would help Congress review CBP staffing needs so
we can ensure to properly fund it to fill these important law
enforcement vacancies and ensure that CBP has taken a
scientific approach to assessing its resourcing needs.
I ask you, sir, are you familiar with that bill? That can
be a yes or no. Could you talk about some of the factors that
go into workload staffing modeling? How can it help CBP assess
its staffing needs if it had this mandated requirement?
Mr. Fulghum. I am familiar with the legislation. For CBP,
as you stated, staffing models are extremely important. For
CBPOs we have a staffing model. It is pretty straightforward
because of the type of work they do. For a Border Patrol agent,
it is vastly different. It is much more complex in terms of
response times.
Mr. Higgins. I don't mean to interrupt, but on that point,
is it a moving target? My brother just----
Mr. Fulghum. So----
Mr. Higgins. Because what is happening on our Southern
Border it is quite challenging to model and predict staffing
requirements, is it not? I mean, who knew 6 months ago that we
would have 76,103 interceptions in February and over 100,000 in
March?
Mr. Fulghum. So what I would say is the amount of staff
required is a moving target, but the model itself can be done.
Mr. Higgins. Exactly.
Mr. Fulghum. I have been briefed on the model. The model
shows tremendous promise. I believe by the June-July time frame
that model will be, at least Phase I will be operational in
what I would call IOC. It will go a long way to helping the
Border Patrol determine exactly what it needs to
operationalize, or operationally control the border.
Mr. Higgins. Overall do you concur that the scientific
staffing modeling, like we describe in my legislation will call
for this subcommittee's support?
Madam Chairwoman was, spoke on behalf, and I thank her for
that and as well as the Ranking Member.
Would you concur it would just help Congress get its head
wrapped around the reality of what staffing is needed and
therefore would fund it as needed for that staffing?
Mr. Fulghum. For Border Patrol agents absolutely, as well
as the rest of the Department. If I could very quickly, I would
tell you that the Department has for about 65 percent of the
work force a good staffing model.
Once we get one for Border Patrol agents we would be up
around 80 percent which is----
Mr. Higgins. Roger that. Quickly in my remaining time, I
want to jump to biometrics. Listen, I support the full
implementation of biometrics. I think it is crucial for the
security of our Nation.
Just in your opinion would authorizing the DHS Office of
Biometric Identity Management help improve biometric vetting
and mitigate visa overstays to help us track that?
Mr. Fulghum. I think what the authorization would do is
give us clear authority not just for the long portion or aspect
of identity management services, but for the broader
implications that we would like to see in the Department. So
yes.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you for your clarification.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Mr. Currie, I will have a question to submit to you in
writing, so I thank you for being here today.
I yield.
Ms. Torres Small. The Chair recognizes for 5 minutes the
Ranking Member, the gentleman Crenshaw from Texas.
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Thank you again both for being here. I would like to start
off with morale and the personnel issues.
Mr. Currie, in your testimony you mentioned how critical it
is for DHS to increase employee engagement and morale. Can you
point to any measurable approaches to how that might be done?
Mr. Currie. Yes. Yes, sir. That is a great question. We
have been looking at this for years and I know DHS has as well.
So we did a report a few years ago and one of our
recommendations is, is that the DHS look across its components
and try to identify the root causes of the morale problem.
I have to say that it is important to look within the
components. Some of these components like TSA and CBP are
massive in and of themselves. They would be their own
Department if compared to other Departments in size.
So I think you have to look at the component itself, its
mission and what drives employee engagement and the specific
challenges within the component.
They have done that. One of the things that has been found
in some of this root cause analysis is actually that a lot of
this it boils back down to what you said in your opening
statement.
It is about supervision, leadership, trust in leadership,
training and development, and do supervisors have the
employees' backs in an environment of trust? That is huge.
So I think there needs to be continued oversight looking
and drilling really down into some of the problem components,
TSA, CBP, Secret Service, because they are very different and
they all have their own unique challenges.
Mr. Crenshaw. Mr. Fulghum, I will let you expand on that if
you would like, but I want to bring up accountability--I didn't
hear it. You know, I heard a lot of leadership issues which is
certainly always the case, but accountability is a big one.
When 48 percent of employees feel that poor performance, or
sorry, 48 percent mean that it is believed that poor
performance is dealt with appropriately, which means 52 percent
believe that it is not.
You know, how do we deal with that? Can we look at ways to
increase the ability of supervisors to fire those with cause
who deserve to be, who are underperforming?
Mr. Fulghum. If I could, sir, I will start with employee
engagement. To Chris' point, what we have done in the
Department is required focused employee engagement action plans
that target specific issues within the components.
Then we have an ESA that the under secretary for management
chairs that monthly looks at how they are making progress on
those plans and continue to hold them accountable because to
Chris' point, what is happening in TSA may be vastly different
than what is happening in CBP.
I think you also have to, once you get to that root cause,
which may be retention or it may be a hiring issue in one
component versus something else in another, build a plan and
hold them accountable for it.
To your point, it is we have done a lot to look at the
issue of performance and why the survey says what it does. Part
of the issue, frankly, it is between the employee and the
supervisor when it comes to performance and discipline and
those actions.
Mr. Crenshaw. Well, to an extent, but I mean, I have worked
in Federal Government. You can't just fire somebody.
Mr. Fulghum. Right.
Mr. Crenshaw. It is not like the private sector.
Mr. Fulghum. I understand that.
Mr. Crenshaw. So there is a lengthy bureaucratic process.
Is there ways to quicken that process? What can we do to help
with that? I know we have taken steps in Congress to make the
Veterans Affairs organization, for instance, better-suited to
hire and fire people quickly.
Mr. Fulghum. I do think you still want to give due process,
but I do think there are ways to streamline the process, to
streamline the discipline process.
My point only was, sir, that those discussions are between
the supervisor and the employee so you don't have a lot of
visibility as to what actions are being taken with disciplinary
actions. That was my only point.
Mr. Crenshaw. Yes.
Mr. Fulghum. Yes, I think more could be done to streamline
that discipline process.
Mr. Crenshaw. Well, absolutely. I mean, again, I have
worked in Federal Government. There is nothing that decreases
morale more than feeling like people you work with are
underperforming and cannot be held accountable for it because
the system just doesn't let them be held accountable. That is a
major problem in all Federal agencies, not just yours.
Did you see, Mr. Currie, or do you see any benefit and this
is we are moving to finance now. Is there any benefit from
moving to a single consolidated finance system for pay and
benefits similar to how the DOD uses DFAS? Would that work?
Mr. Currie. Yes, I think this issue is endemic of a lot of
the challenges the Department has had. I mean, they are
combining agencies that are so different and have different
needs, and every time they tried to do that in the past to have
a DHS-wide system it is a huge challenge.
I think even their contractors, you know, face challenges
in trying to integrate all these systems to serve every
component and give it what it needs. So, you know, I think
there is some benefit in consolidating some functions, but it
is also a major challenge. So it can't be----
Mr. Crenshaw. I would like you both to----
Mr. Currie. I don't think it can all be----
Mr. Crenshaw [continuing]. Talk about this in my remaining
seconds and then you can answer it, but also about how the
Procurements Innovation Lab is going. Any good measurable
benefits from that?
Thank you, Madam Chair. See what I did there?
Ms. Torres Small. Yes.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Torres Small. Thank you.
Mr. Fulghum. Ma'am, can I respond?
Ms. Torres Small. I will follow up afterwards on that.
Thank you.
The Chair recognizes for 5 minutes the gentleman from
Texas, Mr. Taylor.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Madam Chair. I will just a yield a
minute to Congressman Crenshaw to follow up on his question.
Mr. Fulghum. So first of all on financial systems
modernization, what the Department is doing is exactly what DOD
did. I was there when they did it.
First you have to reduce your footprint, which is what we
are doing through system consolidation and then you can
continue to further consolidate.
As it relates to the Procurement Innovation Lab, absolutely
100 percent we are making real progress. I can give you one
quick example. We had a large procurement. It typically takes
us about 180 days to do.
We were able to deliver capability in half that time, just
by using the rules of the FAR, not by asking you for
legislation, not by doing something out of the ordinary, but
just using what is in the FAR and looking under every rock to
see how we could do it differently. It is 100 percent
absolutely working and it is becoming a best practice in the
Federal Government.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you. So just to follow up with that, so
the innovation lab and that acquisition, so that is just
acquiring existing off-the-shelf technology or is that trying
to develop new technology that is specific to DHS's missions?
Mr. Fulghum. So it could be either/or, sir. So it could be
that we are looking to develop something new or it could be
looking to develop something off the shelf, depending on what
our alternatives analysis tells us.
Mr. Taylor. Then can you speak a little bit more, I know
Congressman Crenshaw asked you about the financial system and
you spoke a little bit earlier, but could you just take me more
through? I mean, it looks like you are asking for $120 million
to modernize your financial systems.
Then can you speak to, you know, what you are doing, what
that will look like? Then I know it has had some problems. Can
you speak to how you are going to avoid those?
Mr. Fulghum. So I will start with what we would like to do
with the $120 million. The $120 million will finish the
consolidation of Coast Guard, CWMD, and TSA as well as begin
the effort to modernize FEMA's systems that Chris referenced
earlier. So that is what the money will do in that regard.
As far as what lessons we have learned and what we have
done about it, what we saw in the IBC experience was simply
there were too many folks between us and the folks actually
doing the work. So we had requirements but we had to go through
IBC, who then went through their integrator contractor, who
then went to the software provider.
We now have very clear lines of communication, strong
oversight, and governance. I meet with those folks once a week
myself. They brief me on where this program is and how it is
going. I meet with all stakeholders, which includes our
integrator as well as the software provider monthly to make
sure that they----
Mr. Taylor. Is your----
Mr. Fulghum. We are all staying on the same page.
Mr. Taylor. Who are some of these contractors?
Mr. Fulghum. I am sorry?
Mr. Taylor. Who has some of these contracts? Can you give
me an idea of the companies that are involved?
Mr. Fulghum. So our integrator is IBM and the software
provider is Oracle.
Mr. Taylor. Keep going. I was----
Mr. Fulghum. That is it.
Mr. Taylor. All right.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Torres Small. Thank you.
We will do a second round if folks are interested? I will
recognize myself for 5 minutes.
So I want to pick up where Ranking Member Crenshaw left off
in terms of morale. I appreciate some of the concepts that you
are talking about in terms of action plans. But I would be very
interested to hear more about the resources that are needed for
the work of increasing morale.
So has the Department requested resources in its fiscal
year 2020 budget to specifically address these systemic morale
issues that have plagued the Department's work force since its
inception?
Mr. Fulghum. I believe so, yes, ma'am. So one of the key
aspects that we have uncovered in our analysis is it is not
just about the employee. It is about the family members.
So one of the things that is in not only Management's
budget request, it is very modest, but in other components as
well, is this idea of the elements of family readiness that we
would like to focus on.
One is reducing general stress in the workplace. Two is
child care. Child care and dependent care is a big issue with
many folks. So one of the things that we are exploring is this
idea of off-duty care and partnering with organizations like
FAA who have these type facilities for pretty modest
investment.
We could join them and provide some of that care that folks
need that work these off-duty hours. There is subsidized child
care in the Secret Service budget, as well as a couple of
others, I believe.
Then the other thing that we learned, one of the things
that reinforced what we thought we already knew during the
shutdown was financial literacy. Folks are really struggling.
It is another contributor to stress.
So we have a campaign under way to educate folks about what
tools are out there, what resources are out there to help them
adequately manage their resources.
Ms. Torres Small. In DHS you have a lot of employees who
are operating in surprisingly rural areas. I am thinking of
Border Patrol specifically and Customs. Are you taking that
into account when you are talking about morale?
Mr. Fulghum. So I think targeted retention, targeted
recruiting incentives are something that certainly the Border
Patrol has looked at. The mobility program, which I am sure you
are familiar with, ma'am, is working well and there is money in
the budget for that as well.
Ms. Torres Small. Great. Just following up another
conversation that we are all interested in is I.T. and
cybersecurity. I understand that DHS hasn't reported to
Congress or OPM on Department-wide cybersecurity areas of
critical needs as required by law.
Will the DHS be reporting that information soon? Is there
anything we can do to help with that reporting? This is
something Ranking Member Crenshaw is also very interested in.
Mr. Fulghum. So, ma'am, I believe you are referring to some
of the work that GAO has done reference the coding of
positions. So we coded those positions down to the NIST
standard in terms of 2 digits. Then we have actually coded them
down now to 3 digits as required, but there is still some
clean-up to do. So I think from that regard we are in good
shape.
Ms. Torres Small. Just quickly in my remaining time, I
would love to touch base on security, I mean, sorry, on
diversity and inclusion in that strategic plan. In its
requested budget for Fiscal Year 2020 has the Department
allocated funds to develop either an updated strategy or
programs directed to ensuring it has a diverse and inclusive
work force?
Mr. Fulghum. So we have a diversity and inclusion strategic
plan and an operating plan that goes with it. It is 1 of our 6
priorities within the human capital line of business.
We do have resources requested to make sure that we can
continue the hiring events like we have done in the past that
target women in law enforcement and other diverse needs of the
Department. So yes, ma'am.
Ms. Torres Small. So if I may, that plan was written in
2012. Are there any? Or is there a more recent one?
Mr. Fulghum. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Torres Small. OK.
Mr. Fulghum. We will make sure you get it.
Ms. Torres Small. Fantastic, thank you.
I will yield my time now and I will recognize for 5 minutes
the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Higgins.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Gentleman, let us speak candidly about morale. It has been
brought up several times here specifically regarding Customs
and Border Patrol. I would encourage you each to consider your
response to this query here.
Is there ever a day when those men and women just chill out
at work? Every day is a fire zone, is it not?
Mr. Fulghum. It is an extremely challenging environment.
Mr. Higgins. Extremely challenging climate would be a very
politically correct way to quantify it. Our Congressional
staffs here have incredibly busy days and then we have less
stressful days, Madam Chairwoman.
In the most difficult days and challenging for all of us
are when we have overlapping Congressional obligations,
committee hearings, important votes, floor speeches, many
meetings with constituents. Some weeks are just incredibly
challenging.
Then we have our district work weeks and our Congressional
staff here in the District of Columbia and they get to catch
up. They get to catch up a little bit. They get to breathe.
This never happens with Customs and Border Patrol now.
Their families suffer because talk about morale you have to
understand camaraderie and esprit de corps. When a unit is
pushed beyond its capabilities, its structural ability to
perform its mission and every man and every woman feels
responsible to their brother and their sister to be there.
So things like family vacations, family leave are you
finding, gentlemen, are Customs and Border Patrol taking their
vacation and their family leave?
Mr. Fulghum. I don't have those specific stats on what
vacation use they are using----
Mr. Higgins. Sure thing.
Mr. Fulghum. But I can tell you that they are stretched, as
the Secretary has said, and that they are working incredibly
hard each and every day to get their jobs done.
Mr. Higgins. Mr. Currie, you concur that there is an
essential responsibility among these American men and women,
these patriots that have been tasked with securing our Southern
Border and our ports of entry and areas between our ports of
entry.
And that they are facing human tragedy every day in a wave
after wave after wave. They feel responsible to each other.
So it is our duty, it is our responsibility, Madam
Chairwoman, and I say so with deep respect for you and my
colleagues here.
It is our responsibility to provide these men and women
with the resources that they have told us they need to perform
their missions so that they can develop a morale within a
reasonable framework of what is expected of any human being to
perform.
My wife works for a large corporation and I can tell you
payroll days, those few days, man, that is stress. I just think
about if every day would be payroll for my wife if you would
compare with Customs and Border Patrol.
Every day for our staff here in the District of Columbia
would be a day where we have 3 or 4 committee hearings and many
constituent meeting and important votes on the floor and floor
speeches to make and events to attend.
Of course their morale is suffering because it is not
because of them. It is because of us. It is up to us to make
this correction.
I thank you for the second round of questioning. I very
much admire the candor that these gentlemen have displayed
today. They are to be commended for appearing before this
subcommittee. Madam Chairwoman, I think you are doing a
wonderful job in service for our country.
I feel great promise for this subcommittee that we can get
things done. I hope we can just keep our eyes on the truth and
drive forward despite any political or ideological barriers. I
yield.
Ms. Torres Small. I think we might be concluding here. I
just deeply appreciate your time and in addition your candor,
your clear-eyed vision of improvement.
So thank you for your valuable testimony. The Members of
the subcommittee may have additional questions for the
witnesses. We ask that you respond expeditiously in writing to
those questions.
Without objection, the committee record shall be kept open
for 10 days. Hearing no further business, the subcommittee
stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:28 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Questions From Chairwoman Xochitl Torres Small for Chip Fulghum
Question 1a. To what extent is DHS considering components' leasing
arrangements vs. mission need when determining future consolidation
plans at St. Elizabeths?
Answer. We are developing our NCR Real Estate Consolidation
Strategy based on approved principles and guidance per administration
policy and the under secretary for management. The vision of the
strategy is to optimize the size of the Department's real property
portfolio through consolidations, co-locations, disposal of excess
property, and other efficiencies where appropriate. The overarching
mission is to create operational and cultural synergies through
geographic proximity and generate fiscal savings to reinvest in higher
priorities. The strategy consists of several initiatives, one of which
is to accomplish a complete NCR portfolio diagnostic and to assess the
status of every DHS lease or owned property within the NCR and identify
opportunities for consolidation from an enterprise vice discrete
organization perspective. The initial phase of the NCR portfolio
diagnostic is under way. Once fully completed, the goal is to build a
5-year real estate consolidation plan with clear DHS priorities related
to St Elizabeths and establish centralized planning and programming for
DHS real estate requirements, in partnership with GSA.
Question 1b. Please provide a comprehensive list of all the
Department's current real property lease agreements in the National
Capital Region, and, for each lease, please include the start date, end
date, and annual cost.
Question 1c. Please indicate which leases have been extended on a
short-term basis and which will soon be because of the consolidation
effort.
Answer. See attached list.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The information has been retained in committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 2. In February 2016, GAO reported that DHS had made very
little progress in implementing its Human Resources Information
Technology (HRIT) investment that began in 2003 to consolidate,
integrate, and modernize the Department's human resources IT
infrastructure. What changes has DHS made to the management of HRIT to
justify a $10.4 million budget request for fiscal year 2020? How does
DHS plan to spend that money?
Answer. DHS has greatly improved its HRIT Program, as demonstrated
by the closure of 12 out of the 14 GAO recommendations (86 percent).
DHS continues to meet monthly with GAO auditors to discuss the
remaining three recommendations. DHS built a strategy focused on:
strong governance;
policy changes where needed;
data management; and
consolidation to eliminate redundancy and improve automation
where needed.
DHS looks to shared services--both internally and externally--
first, then we look at best in class solutions and then any solution
that may make operational, fiscal, and business sense.
DHS plans to spend its $10.353 million in fiscal year 2020 to
support of the following initiatives as documented by the program's
cost estimate approved at Acquisition Decision Event (ADE)-1:
$1.967 million for Position Management Solution (new
automation capability);
$2.924 million for Talent Development Management Solution
(replacement for PALMS);
$2.613 million for Employee Performance Management Solution
(new automation capability); and
$2.849 million for Human Capital Enterprise Information
Environment (enhanced capabilities).
Question 3a. The Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer is
requesting $5.6 million in fiscal year 2020 for a Cyber Talent
Management System. The Department expects to hire 150 new cyber
employees by the end of 2020.
Can you please describe how this initiative will help the
Department compete for cybersecurity talent?
Answer. To compete for the cybersecurity talent our mission
requires, DHS must consider best practices for managing cybersecurity
talent and modernize the current civil service system to meet the 21st
Century requirements of the cybersecurity field. The Department
continues to finalize the Cybersecurity Talent Management System (CTMS)
with a focus on several key shifts:
Proactive recruitment using digital tools;
Streamlined hiring with formal, validated assessments;
Market-sensitive compensation;
Flexible, dynamic career paths; and
Development-focused performance management.
With the launch of CTMS, DHS expects to improve its ability to
recruit, compensate, manage, and retain top cybersecurity talent,
including individuals at all career and experience levels.
Question 3b. What are some of the specific approaches that the
Department is using to recruit cyber talent?
Answer. With CTMS, the Department plans to improve cybersecurity
recruiting outcomes by:
Identifying top prospective employees at key industry events
and cybersecurity competitions;
Hosting a joint hiring and recruitment event focused on
cyber in early fiscal year 2020 in the National Capital Region;
Expanding the use of digital platforms to share information
about DHS job opportunities and encourage applications;
Partnering with other agencies and the Partnership for
Public Service for a cyber-fellowship program;
Launching a Cyber Student Internship Program (OCIO) to
create a pipeline of cyber talent at the Department;
Increasing communication with prospective employees about
multifaceted, exciting DHS cybersecurity mission;
Crafting and delivering on a cybersecurity employment brand
built around technical excellence; and
Strengthening relationships with leading academic
intuitions, including Centers of Academic Excellence (CAEs).
Question 3c. How does the Department plan to recruit a diverse
cyber workforce?
Answer. In implementing CTMS, DHS aims to recruit applicants from
all appropriate sources in an endeavor to achieve a workforce from all
segments of society, and in consideration of such factors as equal
employment opportunity and public policies intended to foster a diverse
and inclusive civil service. A core part of the proactive CTMS
recruitment program will be targeted outreach to: Educational
institutions, professional associations, and partner organizations,
including Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Minority-
Serving Institutions, the Hispanic Association of Colleges and
Universities, Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander
Serving Institutions, Tribal Colleges and Universities, Centers of
Academic Excellence, and Veteran Service Organizations.
Question 4. Another $4.4 million is requested for a Cyber
Internship Program in the Office of the Chief Information Officer.
How does DHS plan to identify and recruit potential cyber interns
and help ensure that they stay employed with the Department after their
internships end?
Answer. The Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) will
employ a strategic approach for outreach and marketing to qualified and
prospective candidates. The strategy includes a focus on colleges and
universities designated as National Centers of Academic Excellence
(CAE) in Cyber Defense (CD) and Cyber Operations (CO). Solidifying
relationships with these institutions is a critical element in building
a pipeline and a steady stream of top-tier cybersecurity talent for the
growing needs of the Department.
During participation in the Cyber Student Internship Program, the
interns will be placed in an environment that introduces them to the
many aspects of cybersecurity challenges while learning about the
overall mission of DHS. They will be exposed to multiple components
through a series of rotational assignments, with periods of formal
training and development between rotations. Mentors and coaches will be
provided to aid in developing their understanding of the Department,
its culture, and the role they will play in the success of the mission.
Most importantly, these participants will experience this internship
opportunity as a cohort. The intended objective of this opportunity is
to develop a sense of connection to the Department, its mission, and
one another. Success in this element is critical to retaining these
team members beyond their internship opportunity.
Questions From Chairman Bennie G. Thompson for Chip Fulghum
Question 1. As GAO acknowledged in its recently-issued high-risk
list, DHS has considerable work ahead to improve employee engagement.
What has DHS done to understand that root causes of this morale issue?
Is DHS doing enough to enhance morale?
Answer. DHS is addressing the root causes of this issue by
establishing a regular sustained, rigorous cycle of annual employee
engagement action planning at the component level, overseen by the DHS
Employee Engagement Steering Committee. One of the main criteria of
these action plans is root cause analysis. In April 2018, GAO assessed
the action plans, determined that a root cause analysis process was now
fully effective, and closed this recommendation.
As a result of implementing this regular cycle of action planning,
a multi-year downward trend in the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey
scores turned around, with a 7-percentage point increase in the
Employee Engagement Index since 2015. In 2016, DHS achieved a
significant 3-percentage point increase in employee engagement scores,
which was the greatest increase of any very large agency that year.
Moving forward, DHS is managing several initiatives to enhance
morale. Employee and Family Readiness is one of the Department's top
priorities. DHS is exploring dependent care programs for employees who
work non-traditional work hours, including collaborating with existing
centers operated by the Federal Aviation Administration and the General
Services Administration. In addition to physical and mental health, DHS
is also focusing on educating employees and providing resources for
employees' financial wellness.
The DHS Leader Development Program (LDP) established required and
optimum development practices and resources for new and seasoned
leaders at 5 levels across the Department (team member, team lead,
supervisor, manager, and executive). To date, components have
implemented 98 percent of the LDP requirements, to ensure that all DHS
leaders have consistent access to the programs, tools, and resources to
continually develop their leadership capabilities.
The Department implemented the Leadership Year initiative in fiscal
year 2018, which featured a DHS-wide collaborative effort to produce
and disseminate extensive leadership tools, resources, and programs to
all employees.
Question 2. Given your upcoming retirement from the Department, and
the sudden departure of both the Secretary and under secretary of
management/acting deputy secretary, what actions are you and the
Department taking to ensure that the Management Directorate's mission
is achieved without further disruption?
Answer. DHS has successfully undergone transitions in the past and
will continue to do so. Acting Secretary McAleenan and Senior Official
Performing the Duties of the Deputy Secretary Pekoske are skilled
leaders equipped to meet the challenge of running the Department. In
addition, the Management Directorate has a tremendous team of seasoned
Chief Executive Officers and office leaders with years of experience to
support our on-going work, regardless of leadership changes.
DHS frameworks, such as Management's Integrated Priorities,
informed by our Unity of Effort initiatives and the DHS Strategic Plan,
help shape the way we approach resource management, acquisition,
information technology, and human capital management. There are 3
priorities: Achieve Operational Excellence, Enable Mission Delivery,
and Shape the Future, which capture all of the management functions.
The Chief Executive Officers that head each line of business are
leading the efforts to manage these priorities and will continue to
move forward to implement initiatives and measure outcomes during this
transition period. By using this guiding tool and relying on our sound
leadership and expertise within our Directorate, we will continue the
work that we have always done to support the Department's mission.
Question 3. Can you please describe how the fiscal year 2020 budget
request will be used to enhance diversity throughout the Department,
including among senior executive staff? How is the Department altering
its recruiting practices to build a more inclusive workforce?
Answer. DHS is executing its fiscal year 2016-2019 Inclusive
Diversity Strategic Plan (IDSP) and implementing it through the MGMT
Directorate's Integrated Priorities. DHS is also working on developing
the fiscal year 2020-2024 IDSP and ensuring that it is in line with the
new Government-wide plan when the Office of Personnel Management
releases it. The fiscal year 2020 budget will enable DHS to: Further
leverage business data analytics, via the Strategic Marketing,
Outreach, Recruitment and Engagement (SMORE) tool, to execute a
marketing and outreach recruitment strategy; to encourage more
utilization of recruiting via social media platforms to reach
candidates from across the country; and to streamline the hiring
process through innovation, evaluation, and process improvement. DHS
plans to: Finalize and implement a Senior Executive Service (SES)
Diversity Plan to provide guidance to DHS components on conducting
robust internal and external outreach to fill SES vacancies;
reemphasize the importance of preparing high quality SES application
packages; provide guidance on preparing for SES interviews; and find
opportunities to build on SES executive core qualifications.
DHS also plans to build on its successes in inclusive diversity by:
Conducting inclusive diversity training for senior
executives;
Conducting unconscious bias training for hiring managers;
Implementing Inclusive Diversity Dialogues programs; and
Expanding employee resource groups to increase and assist in
recruitment and outreach efforts.
Question 4a. Nearly 150,000 Border Patrol agents, CBP officers, TSA
employees, and Coast Guard personnel were forced to work without pay
during President Trump's 35-day Government shutdown. Another 12 percent
of the DHS workforce was involuntarily furloughed. The shutdown
extended beyond personnel. Hiring was put on hold. Contracts were
canceled. And acquisitions were delayed.
Please describe how President Trump's shutdown immediately impacted
the Department's operations? Also, what might be the long-term impacts
of the shutdown on DHS?
Answer. While front-line operations continued, many mission-
enabling support functions ceased. The immediate impacts of the lapse
in DHS appropriations were:
recruitment actions were suspended, resulting in a hiring
process backlog;
delayed entry on duty for new hires;
cancellation or delay of training courses taught by, and
attended by, DHS employees;
varying levels of financial hardship for DHS employees and
their families; and
mission support was provided solely to those DHS activities
that met the criteria to be considered excepted.
The complete impact of the extended lapse in appropriations is not
yet fully known. DHS continues to assess the long-term impacts of the
lapse in appropriations.
Question 4b. How many employees resigned from DHS during the 35-day
partial Government shutdown? Please provide a breakdown by component.
Answer. Please see below breakdown of the number of resignations
for the 2018-2019 partial Government shutdown, and a comparison to the
same period in 2017-2018.
DHS RESIGNATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Fiscal
Year 2018 Year 2019
Component (12/22/17- (12/22/18-
1/26/18) 1/26/19)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CBP............................................... 65 41
CISA.............................................. 7 4
FEMA.............................................. 184 86
FLETC............................................. 1 2
HQ................................................ 21 13
ICE............................................... 20 18
OIG............................................... 3 3
TSA............................................... 559 434
USCG.............................................. 19 9
USCIS............................................. 38 32
USSS.............................................. 14 13
---------------------
DHS Total................................... 931 655
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 5. In a September 2018 report to GAO, DHS stated that
building its acquisition workforce is a ``top priority for continuing
to improve the way the Department does business and is a central
component of its transformational strategy.'' How has the Acquisition
Professional Career Program, specifically, helped the Department
achieve its workforce goals?
Answer. A key element of Department of Homeland Security's (DHS)
succession plan is the Acquisition Professional Career Program (APCP).
The APCP has significantly contributed to DHS's workforce goals. The
APCP seeks to partner with National universities and colleges to usher
a diverse pool of candidates into acquisition careers. Since its
inception in 2008, the APCP has produced 316 graduates, many of whom
have ascended to positions of increased responsibility working with
complex contracts and acquisition programs. At present, 64.7 percent
(or 213) of these graduates still hold positions in DHS and continue to
contribute as technical experts, supervisors, and mentors to those more
junior within the acquisition field. A fundamental component of the
APCP mission is to address a critical need for recruitment and
retention within DHS, where staffing gaps could affect the ability of
DHS to carry out its mission. The contract specialist position is
identified by the Office of Personnel Management as a mission-critical
occupation (MCO) and represents 75 percent of all APCP positions.
Question 6. DHS has taken steps to improve acquisition management,
such as reestablishing the Joint Requirements Council in June 2014 to
review and validate DHS acquisition requirements. However, GAO has
reported that DHS is not using the Joint Requirements Council to its
full potential. The council could be identifying overlapping
requirements and making recommendations to Department leadership to
help ensure DHS's limited resources are used most effectively. Why is
DHS not using the council in this way? What are DHS's plans for the
council going forward?
Answer. Since its inception in 2014, the component led-, component-
driven JRC has produced tangible benefits by helping to refine and
integrate mission requirements to enhance operational effectiveness
directly and better inform the Department's main investment pillars,
the program and budget review, and the acquisition review process. In
GAO's most recent report, we are pleased to note their positive
recognition of the JRC's on-going maturation of its requirements
process, as well as efforts to strengthen the Department's requirements
professionals through various training courses and the Joint
Requirements Integration and Management System (JRIMS) process.
As the JRC continues to evolve under the leadership of the new
director, our key tasks are: (1) Govern JRIMS execution to enhance
operational effectiveness directly and better inform the DHS's main
investment pillars. (2) Build component requirements capacity and
capability to provide expertise Department-wide. (3) Establish and
oversee functionally aligned portfolio structures to enhance joint
collaboration. The JRC is establishing a requirements specialization
certificate program. The purpose of this credential is to expand the
knowledge base of the DHS requirements community of practice,
establishing a competency baseline, and continue to build capacity and
capability.
Additionally, the council is working to establish a requirements
workforce model that can be applied to each of the components based on
their unique needs. An example of the council's oversight and guidance
within DHS, is that there are 9 joint documents (signed by multiple
components and/or generated by joint program office) which have been
completed since JRIMS inception, reducing duplication and application
of resources. Through the JRC, the Department's senior leaders remain
committed to continuing to improve the delivery to components the right
capabilities at the right time to perform the Department's missions
safely and effectively.
Questions From Ranking Member Dan Crenshaw for Chip Fulghum
Question 1a. The request of $270 million for the Office of
Biometric Identity Management (OBIM) is $40 million more than fiscal
year 2019 enacted level of $230 million.
Answer. The fiscal year 2020 President's budget request is actually
only $18.8 million more than the fiscal year 2019 enacted budget. The
$230 million referenced only takes into account OBIM's O&S
appropriation and does not take into account the $20 million in PC&I.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delta
(Fiscal
Fiscal Fiscal Year Year 2020
Appropriation ($K) Year 2019 2020 minus
Enacted President's Fiscal
Budget Year
2019)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
O&S.................................. $230,808 $254,062 $23,254
PC&I................................. 20,000 15,497 -4,503
----------------------------------
TOTAL.......................... $250,808 $269,559 $18,751
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 1b. Can you detail what the additional funds support?
Answer. The additional funds will support continued Homeland
Advanced Recognition Technology (HART) development, provide operations
and maintenance for both the Automated Biometric Identification System
(IDENT) and HART systems (during the bridge period between HART roll-
out and IDENT decommissioning), and maintain the Department of Homeland
Security enterprise-wide facial identity licenses that supports the
capacity requirements of the Department.
Question 1c. How will these funds prepare OBIM for future biometric
usage across DHS?
Answer. These funds will prepare the Office of Biometric Identity
Management for future biometric usage across the Department by
providing additional HART capabilities--specifically, fielding
modalities beyond fingerprint, such as facial and iris, in order to
help OBIM stakeholders complete their mission by adding multimodal
biometric examiners and providing additional biometric examiner tools.
Additionally, HART development will improve the accessibility of the
system via a web portal for system customers and will provide a
holistic view of identities to assist customer adjudication and
decision making related to access, credentials, or benefits.
Question 2a. There are a number of leadership vacancies at the
Department.
How is the Department working in coordination with the White House
to prioritize and fill leadership vacancies?
Answer. DHS Executive Leadership works with the White House on an
on-going basis to define and align organizational requirements and
priorities for filling key leadership vacancies.
Question 2b. What factors are taken into consideration in
developing a budget for offices where key leadership positions remain
vacant?
Answer. The budget development process is squarely focused on the
missions of the Department and is structured to support leadership
resourcing decisions, whether those leaders are acting or confirmed. To
address the dynamic nature of the security environment today, DHS
leadership updates resourcing priorities at the start of every budget
formulation cycle. The Department's corporate budget process then
synthesizes these priorities with component inputs so that all
perspectives are considered as we balance near-term risk across
portfolios with long-term investment for future capabilities.
Question 3a. In April 2018, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Management Efficiency held a hearing to continue oversight over DHS's
headquarters consolidation project at St. Elizabeths. The subcommittee
learned that St. Elizabeths continued to face schedule delays and that
DHS and the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) were working to
provide an updated plan for the project by the end of last year. The
committee still has not seen a formal updated plan.
What is included in the $223 million request? Are you concerned
that appropriators will be reluctant to provide the fiscal year 2020
budget request of $223.8 million in new funding for St. Elizabeths
before an updated plan has been received?
Answer. In the fiscal year 2019 annual appropriations act, Congress
directed DHS to transfer $120 million to GSA and for those funds to be
merged with GSA's Federal Buildings Fund (which includes $130 million
from fiscal year 2016). These funds ($250 million) will be used to
construct the core/shell portion of the new Cybersecurity and
Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) Headquarters building on the
southern plateau of the St. Elizabeths West Campus identified in the
on-going Draft Master Plan revision. However, no DHS tenant build-out
funding was included in the fiscal year 2019 appropriation.
Consequently, the fiscal year 2020 DHS budget request continues the
plan to optimize St. Elizabeths by providing $223.8 million for tenant
build-out costs required to deliver a complete/useable CISA
Headquarters building. This funding will be used for the physical
build-out of tenant spaces, including information technology,
electronic physical security, outfitting (furniture, built-ins, storage
systems, etc.), move planning and execution, commissioning/de-
commissioning costs and associated GSA fees (600K Gross Square Feet
(GSF) in total). This new construction for the CISA Headquarters
building will maximize utilization/capacity and optimize mission
effectiveness.
Should the fiscal year 2020 DHS request not be funded, the $250
million, 600K GSF CISA Headquarters core and shell, previously funded
by the Congress as noted above, will be unable to move forward. As
noted in other responses, the inability to maintain the project
development schedule will result in significant future cost increases,
which can be mitigated or avoided altogether by fully funding the
tenant build-out request.
Question 3b. One challenge for DHS and GSA planning has been a
failure to properly consider the impact of funding shortfalls on the
project's schedule estimates. How will updated plans for St. Elizabeths
take into consideration the possibility of funding shortfalls in fiscal
year 2020 and beyond?
Answer. Both GSA and DHS have properly planned, considered, and
kept the Congress appraised on an annual basis as to the potential
impacts of not providing appropriations as requested to meet the
planned development schedule. The impacts are known and substantial:
Commercial leases have definitive terms/expirations. The
development/funding schedule is aligned to deliver new
facilities prior to lease expiration to avoid costly short-term
lease extensions.
Should the Congress not fund the schedule as requested, GSA
and DHS must decide whether to pursue short-term lease
extensions at premium costs of up to 20 percent, or proceed
with full commercial lease replacement with tenant costs
incurred.
Lessors may be unwilling to extend leases beyond the current
terms which will require a move regardless of funding.
Consequently, failure to fund the St. Elizabeths development
schedule may require changes to the planned occupancies.
There is no status quo option. DHS will incur a funding
liability regardless.
Lack of consistent GSA/DHS St. Elizabeths funding since
fiscal year 2011 has eroded the schedule, misaligned lease
expirations, and forced multiple revisions to the campus
occupancy plan.
Failure to fund the remaining segments of the campus will
leave the Center Building surrounded by dilapidated buildings
on the upper campus, sub-optimizing the investments made in
infrastructure and risking cost savings.
Construction costs increase over time. The R.S. Means
Historical Cost Index from 2009 through 2019 (https://
www.rsmeansonline.com/references/unit/refpdf/hci.pdf) shows
construction costs have increased 26.2 percent nationally. The
National Capital Region (NCR) is representative of that
increase. Failure to fund the schedule in the year requested
will result in increased costs for materials and installation
in future years with no change in requirements.
In summary, no matter how well GSA and DHS plan, all courses of
action require Congressional funding for either Federal construction,
commercial lease extensions, or commercial lease replacements. There is
no status quo option without financial impacts. Fully funding both GSA
and DHS development requests to complete 3 new construction facilities
at St. Elizabeths will result in a present value 30-year savings of
$675 million over the best available commercial lease options.
Question 3c. It is our understanding that there is not currently a
plan that includes all of the DHS components being at St. Elizabeths.
If all the components cannot be housed at St. Elizabeths, are there
still advantages to moving some components to St. Elizabeths? How will
you determine which components will be housed there?
Answer. Absolutely. The consolidation of the DHS Headquarters in
the NCR (St. Elizabeths campus and commercial lease consolidation) to
the extent possible will enhance mission effectiveness, operational
efficiency, and unity of effort. From the very beginning of planning
for the Consolidated DHS Headquarters at St. Elizabeths, it was
recognized that there was no site within the NCR that could accommodate
a complete consolidation of the Department's headquarters facilities.
Consequently, our plans have always sought to reduce the number of
locations from a high point of 53 and a current number of 46 to as few
as possible with a target of 6 to 8.
The primary challenge continues to be the lack of consistent
funding for both GSA and DHS to execute severable project segments.
This funding uncertainty coupled with definitive lease expirations has
required multiple revisions to the occupancy plan.
Full development of St. Elizabeths will enhance operations
coordination, reduce real estate costs, and leverage the $2.5 billion
campus investment to date (GSA: $1.6 billion, DHS: $866 million).
Government-owned property provides DHS long-term stability and savings
as compared to the best available commercial lease options. Fully
funding 3 new construction facilities for CISA, I&A, and either ICE or
FEMA will provide DHS with 30-year present value savings of $675
million over the best available commercial lease options.
Question 3d. How much is the total request for DHS consolidation
between the $223 million requested in your budget and GSA's request?
How will GSA and DHS coordinate their funding for DHS headquarters
consolidation so that the cost and schedule priorities are being met?
Answer. As noted above, the core and shell for the new CISA
Headquarters at St. Elizabeths was funded through a combination of GSA
fiscal year 2016 funds ($130 million) and the $120 million provided in
the DHS fiscal year 2019 appropriation for GSA responsibilities. No DHS
tenant improvement funding was provided. Consequently, GSA has $250
million to construct the CISA HQ core and shell, and DHS requires full
funding of the fiscal year 2020 budget request of $223.8 million to
provide all tenant-responsible items and deliver a complete/useable
facility.
The GSA fiscal year 2020 request is for both the core/shell for the
new I&A Headquarters to be located at St. Elizabeths adjacent to the
U.S. Coast Guard Munro Headquarters Building and $50 million for second
parking garage near Gate 1. The DHS Tenant Build-out Request for this
facility will be made in a future fiscal year. Relocation of I&A HQ to
St. Elizabeths will allow the Department to end its occupancy at the
Nebraska Avenue Complex (NAC) and enable GSA, the owner of the NAC, to
determine the best future use of the asset, including the possible
disposal.
Synchronization of the GSA and DHS appropriations continues to be a
challenge for the development. Optimally GSA core and shell and DHS
Tenant Improvement requests would occur simultaneously or in the case
of CISA and I&A, tenant improvement dollars coming the year following
core and shell. Full funding of the annual GSA and DHS budget requests
will assure project segments are synchronized, executable and deliver
complete and useable facilities.
Question 4a. The fiscal year 2020 budget requests $119.6 million
for financial systems modernization for USCG, TSA, and FEMA. Financial
services modernization has faced serious schedule delays and cost
overruns in the past. How are you and the Department heightening
oversight over this project to avoid further waste and inefficiency?
Answer. The Joint Program Management Office (JPMO) within the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Office of the Chief Financial
Officer (OCFO) was established to provide program management and
governance of all DHS Financial System Modernization (FSM) programs and
projects. The JPMO is using many of the lessons learned from the
relationship with Department of Interior (DOI) Interior Business Center
(IBC) as well as recommendations from GAO to improve oversight and
management of FSM, specifically in the areas of cost, schedule, and
performance management; vendor management; and communication. Prior to
the Government shutdown, the program had delivered every major
milestone on schedule at cost.
cost, schedule, and performance management
The JPMO is monitoring vendor progress by incorporating monthly
cost, schedule, and performance metrics. Using the techniques of Earned
Value Management (EVM), DHS is able to track progress toward scheduled
milestones and ensure requirements are being delivered on time and on
budget. These metrics also allow for early identification and
remediation of potential cost or schedule variances.
The JPMO has established a Program Change Control Board (P-CCB)
comprised of Headquarters and Trio Components. The P-CCB evaluates all
proposed changes to requirements for validated need, and cost,
schedule, and performance impacts. The P-CCB ensures that proposed
changes are properly documented and tracked through implementation.
vendor management
DHS now has a direct relationship with the system deployment agent
(SDA) contracted to complete system configuration, rather than working
through an intermediary under the Federal shared service provider
(FSSP) model. This has allowed DHS to clearly define requirements for
deliverables, schedule, and performance. To ensure that the program
maintains consistent staffing, cost, and schedule, the JPMO has
required the SDA to resource load their integrated master schedule
(IMS).
communication
The JPMO acts as a single voice for FSM, establishing clear lines
of communication between DHS leadership, components, and vendors.
Established governance structures ensure information is disseminated
timely to all stakeholders. The Deputy Under Secretary for Management
(DUSM) also meets with the executive leadership of DHS, components, and
the support vendors every month to ensure that the program is
proceeding in an efficient manner.
oversight
The DUSM meets weekly with program leadership, the CIO, CPO, and
CFO to ensure the program stays on track. In addition, the DUSM also
meets monthly with the system integrator and software developer.
Question 4b. Financial system modernization has been a major long-
standing challenge for DHS. Could you clearly explain for us the
current time line for modernizing the financial management systems for
the Coast Guard, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and Immigration
and Customs Enforcement?
Answer. After transitioning the FSM software solution to a DHS Data
Center in fiscal year 2018, DHS recommenced USCG and TSA implementation
in Q4 fiscal year 2018 using an incremental build methodology. The
first release, finished in December 2018, completed all global
configurations necessary for Trio components, meeting approximately 80%
of Trio requirements. Further releases have focused on global
functionality to support CWMD (on track for delivery by 1Q fiscal year
2020), TSA-specific reporting and functionality (on track for deliver
by 2Q fiscal year 2020), and USCG-specific interfaces and
functionality.
USCG development will be completed by Q3 fiscal year 2020 and both
TSA and USCG will begin full production use of the solution in Q1
fiscal year 2021.
DHS is currently preparing two strategic sourcing vehicles to
competitively obtain software licenses and system integrators through
the commercial marketplace for future component implementations,
including FEMA and ICE. DHS submitted a Request for Information for
Financial Management Software to Federal Business Opportunities in
December 2018. DHS is currently in the process of incorporating vendor
feedback. Once the strategic sourcing vehicles are finalized, FEMA,
ICE, and ICE Customers (USCIS, DMO, S&T, and CISA) will select
software(s) and system integrator(s) (award planned by end of fiscal
year 2019) and then begin detailed implementation planning in a
discovery period in fiscal year 2020. DHS has requested funding for
FEMA in fiscal year 2020 to begin discovery and implementation.
Question 5. December 31, 2017 but has yet to be released. How has
the QHSR's delay and the lack of a finalized strategy for how DHS's
resources should be allocated impacted the ability to develop a budget
request? With the absence of a QHSR, how do you ensure that the
requests are adequate to meet future strategic needs?
Answer. The Department continuously evaluates the threat
environment in order to ensure appropriate resource allocation across
all mission areas. In order to address the dynamic nature of the
security environment today, DHS leadership updates resourcing
priorities at the start of every budget formulation cycle. The
Department's corporate budget process then synthesizes these priorities
with component inputs so that all perspectives are considered as we
balance near-term risk across portfolios with long-term investment for
future capabilities.
Questions From Hon. Xochitl Torres Small for Chris Currie
Question 1a. GAO made 14 recommendations to DHS to address HRIT's
poor progress and ineffective management.
What actions, if any, have been taken by DHS to address these
recommendations?
Answer. Since 2016, OHS has made important progress towards
addressing our recommendations to improve its implementation and
management of the Human Resources Information Technology (HRIT)
investment.\1\ As of May 2, 2019, of the 14 HRIT recommendations that
we made to the Department: Nine had been implemented;\2\ 3 had been
overcome by events and, consequently, closed as not implemented;\3\ and
2 remained open.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ GAO, Homeland Security: Oversight of Neglected Human Resources
Information Technology Investment Is Needed, GAO-16-253 (Washington,
DC: Feb. 11, 2016).
\2\ We determined that 3 additional recommendations have been
implemented since the April 3, 2019 hearing, based on actions taken by
OHS.
\3\ For the 3 closed, but not implemented recommendations, OHS
moved one of HRIT's systems into operations and maintenance before
implementing the recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of actions that OHS has taken to implement the 9
recommendations include the following:
The HRIT Executive Steering Committee has been meeting at
least bi-monthly, which is a significant improvement since our
prior review, when we found that the committee had only met one
time during a nearly 2-year period. As a result, the committee
is better-positioned to provide support and guidance to the
investment and to ensure accountability for improved results.
The HRIT Executive Steering Committee has been consistently
involved in overseeing and advising HRIT, including approving
key program management documents, such as its operational plan.
In June 2016, the HRIT Executive Steering Committee approved
a reprioritization of HRIT's list of IT human resource areas
that need improvement (referred to as strategic improvement
opportunities).
DHS developed schedule and life-cycle cost estimates for
addressing HRIT's strategic improvement opportunities.
DHS is in various stages of taking action on the two
recommendations that remain open.
Recommendation #5: Document and track all costs, including
components' costs, associated with HRIT.--DHS has begun
tracking certain costs associated with implementing HRIT's
strategic improvement opportunities, including contractor labor
costs and certain Government labor costs. According to
officials in the Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer,
HRIT is expected to incur additional implementation costs, such
as data migration and subscription costs; however, none of the
programs associated with the strategic improvement
opportunities are far enough along in their implementation to
begin incurring such costs. We plan to continue monitoring this
recommendation to ensure that the Department tracks all costs
(including data migration and subscription costs) associated
with implementing HRIT.
Recommendation #9: The Performance and Learning Management
System (PALMS) program office should establish a time frame for
deciding whether PALMS will be fully deployed at the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the U.S. Coast Guard
(USCG), and determine an alternative approach if the learning
and/or performance management capabilities of PALMS are deemed
not feasible for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE), FEMA, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA),
or USCG.--In response to our recommendation, in February 2017,
DHS determined that implementing PALMS's performance management
capabilities across the Department was not feasible because the
system did not meet all of the components' needs. Accordingly,
DHS decided to discontinue its implementation of the
performance management aspects of PALMS. Subsequently, the
Department developed an alternative approach to delivering
performance management capabilities, through the use of a
shared services solution. DHS leadership approved this approach
in June 2017 and, according to HRIT officials as of March 2019,
they planned to implement this solution by June 2021.
Regarding learning management, in June 2016, ICE implemented
PALMS's learning management capabilities. However, in April
2017, officials in DHS's Office of the Chief Information
Officer reported that the Department had decided not to deploy
PALMS's learning management capabilities at the other 3
components--FEMA, TSA, and USCG--because it was more cost-
effective for these components to use their existing learning
management systems. Since PALMS was not deployed across the
entire Department, as originally intended, in September 2017
DHS committed to implementing an alternative solution to
providing Department-wide learning management capabilities
through the use of a shared services solution. As of March
2019, the Department had planned to deliver these capabilities
by February 2021. The program estimates that it will obtain DHS
approval on its solution approach by May 28, 2019. We are
continuing to monitor DHS's plans for implementing the
Department-wide learning management replacement solution for
PALMS.
Question 1b. Given its past struggles, is DHS capable of
effectively and efficiently spending funds on HRIT?
Answer. Given the progress DHS has demonstrated in implementing our
recommendations, we believe the Department is better positioned to
effectively and efficiently spend funds on HRIT. For example, one of
our recommendations was for DHS to ensure that the HRIT executive
steering committee is consistently involved in overseeing and advising
the investment. Accordingly, the HRIT Executive Steering Committee has
since taken key actions to implement this recommendation. For example,
the steering committee approved the investment's fiscal year 2016-2018
operational plan in June 2016, an updated schedule estimate in June
2017, and a rough-order-of-magnitude life-cycle cost estimate for the
investment in March 2018. In addition, in 2018 the steering committee
met to discuss the investment on at least a bi-monthly basis. As a
result, the steering committee is better positioned to provide support
and guidance to the investment and to ensure funding is spent
effectively and efficiently.
In addition, in response to our open recommendation that HRIT
document and track all costs, including components' costs, associated
with the investment, HRIT officials have begun tracking certain HRIT
costs. Specifically, the officials have been tracking costs associated
with contractor labor and certain Government labor costs. HRIT is
expected to incur additional implementation costs, such as data
migration and subscription costs; however, none of the programs
associated with the strategic improvement opportunities are far enough
along in their implementations to begin incurring such costs. We plan
to continue monitoring this recommendation to ensure that the
Department tracks all costs (including data migration and subscription
costs) associated with implementing HRIT to ensure that funds are spent
effectively and efficiently.
Questions From Chairman Bennie G. Thompson for Chris Currie
Question 1. As GAO acknowledged in its recently-issued high-risk
list, DHS has considerable work ahead to improve employee engagement.
What has DHS done to understand that root causes of this moral issue?
Is DHS doing enough to enhance morale?
Answer. In 2012, we reported that OHS and selected components
planned actions to improve morale in response to survey results, but
their efforts could be improved through, among other things, enhanced
use of root cause analyses in their action planning. Without root cause
analysis, DHS risked not being able to address the underlying concerns
of its varied employee population. We recommended that the Office of
the Chief Human Capital Officer and component human capital officials
examine their root cause analysis efforts and, where absent, add the
following: Comparisons of demographic groups, benchmarking against
similar organizations, and linkage of root cause findings to action
plans.
As of January 2018, DHS had taken steps to address this. For
example, TSA conducted root cause analysis and linked findings to
action planning by first conducting statistical analysis of employee
satisfaction drivers and related focus group findings to identify high-
priority areas for action. They then used that information as the basis
for TSA employee morale action planning. USSS conducted a benchmarking
exercise where they compared the morale of their employees to various
agencies, including the U.S. Capitol Police, U.S. Coast Guard, and the
Drug Enforcement Administration. The benchmarking findings were then
used to develop action planning based on lessons learned at the other
agencies. FEMA conducted demographic group comparisons, looking at
employee gender, tenure with FEMA, age, and ethnicity, and used the
information to inform senior leadership and subsequent employee
engagement action planning. Other components, including ICE, NPPD, U.S.
Coast Guard, CBP, USCIS, also provided information that addressed our
recommendation. As a result of these steps, DHS is better positioned to
understand and address employee morale challenges.
However, DHS's morale problem remains--ranking last among large
agencies on employee engagement--indicating that concerted effort is
needed by DHS leadership to address the challenge. Morale is not
uniformly low at DHS, the U.S. Coast Guard, for example, is
consistently above the Federal average, indicating there are
opportunities to improve.
Question 2. What is the value of the Quadrennial Homeland Security
Review and the downside of not having a current examination of the
homeland security strategy of the Nation?
Answer. The Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act
of 2007 (9/11 Commission Act) requires that beginning in fiscal year
2009 and every 4 years thereafter, DHS conduct a review that provides a
comprehensive examination of the homeland security strategy of the
United States.\4\ According to the 9/11 Commission Act, the review is
to delineate and update, as appropriate, the National homeland security
strategy, outline and prioritize critical homeland security missions,
and assess the organizational alignment of DHS with the homeland
security strategy and missions. The Act further requires that DHS
conduct the quadrennial review in consultation with stakeholders, such
as heads of Federal agencies; key officials of the Department; State,
local, and Tribal governments; private-sector representatives; and
academics and other policy experts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Pub. L. No. 110-53, 2401(a), 121 Stat. 266, 543-45 (2007); 6
U.S.C. 347.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR) is an opportunity
for OHS leadership and homeland security stakeholders to come together
and identify the key homeland security strategic priorities for a 4-
year time horizon. There are 3 key downsides to not having the QHSR
this cycle. First, stakeholder perspectives (both Federal and non-
Federal) are not informing DHS's strategic planning to the extent that
they could if the QHSR were completed and released. Second, OHS was
maturing an extensive risk analysis intended to assist with identifying
the most relevant strategic priorities for the near future. Without the
QHSR, we don't know whether that analysis was completed and if it is
informing DHS's strategic direction. And third, in years past, the QHSR
was the foundational document for DHS's Strategic Plan. It's unclear
what is informing DHS's on-going strategic plan development if the QHSR
is not finalized and published.
Questions From Ranking Member Dan Crenshaw for Chris Currie
Question 1. Acquisition management has been a long-standing issue
for DHS. Can you identify the biggest areas of concern and steps OHS
has taken to address these issues? What additional steps can DHS take
to improve acquisition management? What steps can DHS take to improve
the Joint Requirements Council and use it to fulfill its intended
purpose to identify overlapping requirements and allocate resources
more efficiently?
Answer. DHS has made incremental improvements to the management of
its major acquisition programs. For example, in 2017 we found that, for
the first time since GAO began its annual assessment, all of the
programs in our review had Department-approved baselines with cost,
schedule, and performance goals. However, we have found that DHS has
struggled to consistently apply its acquisition policy, which has led
to execution challenges for some of its major acquisition programs. For
example, during 2017, less than half of the major acquisition programs
we reviewed with approved schedule and cost goals were on track.
DHS has taken steps to strengthen requirements development across
the Department, such as reestablishing the Joint Requirements Council
in June 2014. However, opportunities remain to further strengthen DHS's
acquisition process by using the Joint Requirements Council to impact
DHS's budget. The council could better fulfill its mission by
identifying overlapping or common requirements between DHS components
and by making recommendations to senior leadership to help ensure that
DHS uses its finite investment resources wisely consistent with the
responsibilities contained within its charter. These responsibilities
include considering the long-term implications of investments,
identifying competing and/or complimentary programs in the out years,
and championing a balanced portfolio of investments by establishing
priorities that combine near-term operational improvements with long-
term strategic planning.
Question 2a. In January 2016, GAO made 14 recommendations to DHS to
address poor progress and ineffective management with the Human
Resources Information Technology (HRIT). For example, some of the
recommendations are for DHS to update and maintain a schedule estimate
for when it plans to implement each of the strategic improvement
opportunities and develop a complete life-cycle cost estimate for the
implementation of HRIT. DHS has reported that 6 of the 14
recommendations have been implemented. Has DHS provided any time lines
for when it plans to implement the remaining 8 recommendations?
Answer. DHS provided time frames for implementing each of our
recommendations to improve its implementation and management of the
HRIT investment, and executed against those time frames.\5\ As such,
since 2016, DHS has made important progress toward addressing our
recommendations. As of May 2, 2019, of the 14 HRIT recommendations:
Nine had been implemented;\6\ 3 had been overcome by events and,
consequently, closed as not implemented;\7\ and 2 remained open.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ GAO, Homeland Security: Oversight of Neglected Human Resources
Information Technology Investment Is Needed, GAO-16-253 (Washington,
DC: Feb. 11, 2016).
\6\ We determined that 3 additional recommendations have been
implemented since the April 3, 2019 hearing, based on actions taken by
DHS.
\7\ For the 3 closed, but not implemented, recommendations, DHS
moved one of HRIT's systems into operations and maintenance before
implementing the recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of actions that OHS has taken to implement the 9
recommendations include:
The HRIT Executive Steering Committee has been meeting at
least bi-monthly, which is a significant improvement from our
prior review where we found that the committee only met one
time during a nearly 2-year period. As a result, the committee
is better positioned to provide support and guidance to the
investment and to ensure accountability for improved results.
The HRIT Executive Steering Committee has been consistently
involved in overseeing and advising HRIT, including approving
key program management documents, such as its operational plan.
In June 2016, the HRIT Executive Steering Committee approved
a reprioritization of HRIT's list of IT human resource areas
that need improvement (referred to as strategic improvement
opportunities).
DHS developed schedule and life-cycle cost estimates for
addressing HRIT's strategic improvement opportunities.
DHS is in various stages of taking action on the two
recommendations that remain open.
Recommendation #5: Document and track all costs, including
components' costs, associated with HRIT.--DHS has begun
tracking certain costs associated with implementing HRIT's
strategic improvement opportunities, including contractor labor
costs and certain Government labor costs. According to
officials in the Department's Office of the Chief Human Capital
Officer, HRIT is expected to incur additional implementation
costs, such as data migration and subscription costs; however,
none of the programs associated with the strategic improvement
opportunities are far enough along in their implementations to
begin incurring such costs. We will continue to monitor this
recommendation to ensure that the Department tracks all costs
(including data migration and subscription costs) associated
with implementing HRIT.
Recommendation #9: The Performance and Learning Management
System (PALMS) program office should establish a time frame for
deciding whether PALMS will be fully deployed at the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the U.S. Coast Guard
(USCG), and determine an alternative approach if the learning
and/or performance management capabilities of PALMS are deemed
not feasible for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE), FEMA the Transportation Security Administration (TSA),
or USCG.--In response to our recommendation, in February 2017,
DHS determined that implementing PALMS's performance management
capabilities across the Department was not feasible because the
system did not meet all of the components' needs. Accordingly,
DHS decided to discontinue its implementation of the
performance management aspects of PALMS. Subsequently, the
Department developed an alternative approach to delivering
performance management capabilities through the use of a shared
services solution. DHS leadership approved this approach in
June 2017, and, according to HRIT officials as of March 2019,
they planned to implement this solution by June 2021.
Regarding learning management, in June 2016, ICE implemented
PALMS's learning management capabilities. However, in April
2017, officials in DHS's Office of the Chief Information
Officer reported that the Department had decided not to deploy
PALMS's learning management capabilities at the other 3
components--FEMA, TSA, and USCG--because it was more cost-
effective for these components to use their existing learning
management systems. Since PALMS was not deployed across the
entire Department, as originally intended, in September 2017
DHS committed to implementing an alternative solution to
providing Department-wide learning management capabilities
through the use of a shared services solution. As of March
2019, the Department planned to deliver these capabilities by
February 2021. The program estimates that it will obtain DHS
approval on its solution approach by May 28, 2019. We are
monitoring DHS's plans for implementing the Department-wide
learning management replacement solution for PALMS.
Question 2b. To the extent DHS has not implemented the remaining 8
recommendations, what is the risk to DHS's IT Management and Management
Integration?
Answer. Given the progress DHS has demonstrated in implementing our
recommendations, we believe DHS has lowered its risk of ineffective IT
management. Specifically, one of the key IT management areas that we
monitor is the level of oversight and on-going support officials from
the Office of the Chief Information Officer provide to troubled
investments to improve their cost, schedule, and performance. In our
March 2019 high-risk report, we pointed out that DHS had demonstrated
improvement in this key IT management area due, in part, to the
Department taking actions to implement the HRIT recommendations
associated with establishing cost and schedule estimates.
Progress integrating DHS management functions requires a concerted
DHS effort to develop consistent or consolidated processes and systems
across its management functions, including IT management and
acquisition management. Implementing outstanding GAO recommendations,
including those related to HRIT, will further DHS's progress in this
regard.
[all]
| MEMBERNAME | BIOGUIDEID | GPOID | CHAMBER | PARTY | ROLE | STATE | CONGRESS | AUTHORITYID |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thompson, Bennie G. | T000193 | 8020 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | MS | 116 | 1151 |
| Langevin, James R. | L000559 | 8140 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | RI | 116 | 1668 |
| Rogers, Mike D. | R000575 | 7788 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | AL | 116 | 1704 |
| Cleaver, Emanuel | C001061 | 8013 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | MO | 116 | 1790 |
| Green, Al | G000553 | 8165 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | TX | 116 | 1803 |
| McCaul, Michael T. | M001157 | 8166 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | TX | 116 | 1804 |
| Clarke, Yvette D. | C001067 | 8072 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | NY | 116 | 1864 |
| Titus, Dina | T000468 | 7493 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | NV | 116 | 1940 |
| Richmond, Cedric L. | R000588 | 7960 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | LA | 116 | 2023 |
| Payne, Donald M., Jr. | P000604 | 8373 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | NJ | 116 | 2097 |
| Watson Coleman, Bonnie | W000822 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | NJ | 116 | 2259 | |
| Rice, Kathleen M. | R000602 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | NY | 116 | 2262 | |
| Katko, John | K000386 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | NY | 116 | 2264 | |
| Ratcliffe, John | R000601 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | TX | 116 | 2268 | |
| Barragan, Nanette Diaz | B001300 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | CA | 116 | 2311 | |
| Demings, Val Butler | D000627 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | FL | 116 | 2320 | |
| Higgins, Clay | H001077 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | LA | 116 | 2329 | |
| Lesko, Debbie | L000589 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | AZ | 116 | 2368 | |
| Underwood, Lauren | U000040 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | IL | 116 | 2399 | |
| Slotkin, Elissa | S001208 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | MI | 116 | 2407 | |
| Guest, Michael | G000591 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | MS | 116 | 2416 | |
| Rose, Max | R000613 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | NY | 116 | 2426 | |
| Joyce, John | J000302 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | PA | 116 | 2435 | |
| Green, Mark E. | G000590 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | TN | 116 | 2442 | |
| Crenshaw, Dan | C001120 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | TX | 116 | 2443 | |
| Taylor, Van | T000479 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | TX | 116 | 2444 | |
| Jackson Lee, Sheila | J000032 | 8174 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | TX | 116 | 588 |
| King, Peter T. | K000210 | 8064 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | NY | 116 | 635 |
| H | COMMMEMBER | NC | 116 |
Disclaimer:
Please refer to the About page for more information.