Department of Homeland Security Financial Accountability Act

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his comments on this important issue, and rise to add my own remarks on the critical importance of building a strong homeland security strategy. As members of the Governmental Affairs Committee labored over legislation to create the Department of Homeland Security, we became well acquainted with the daunting array of programs and policies that are part of our homeland security effort. In creating the Department, and through efforts we have undertaken since that time, the committee has worked to help supply the Department of Homeland Security with the tools it will need to be successful. Our oversight work has demonstrated the need to have a strong national strategy to guide our homeland efforts. I agree with my colleague that GAO and others have identified ways in which our homeland security strategy could be strengthened and updated. This legislation will facilitate improvements by requiring that the administration lay out its homeland security strategy anew, and coordinate this strategy with its annual budget requests. This should bring out strategic vision into sharper view, and ensure that adequate resources are sought and secured to carry out homeland priorities.

FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to express my support for passage of H.R. 4259, the Department of Homeland Security Financial Accountability Act. This Act will apply the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 to the Department of Homeland Security, and will codify the existence of an Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation within the Department. This latter provision, which was not part of the Senate-passed companion bill, S. 1567, is an important one, and I would like to engage in a colloquy with the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Governmental Affairs to clarify what is and is not intended by this provision.

The Department of Homeland Security is charged with carrying out a wide range of activities related to our domestic security. In my view, it is probably the executive department with the broadest range of activities that need to be coordinated and reconciled from a programmatic standpoint. It is crucial that the Department have a robust programmatic coordination function at the highest level, and that this function have, at its base, a strong analytical capability for purposes of setting priorities among the disparate parts of the Department for purposes of budget formulation and execution. For this reason, the statutory creation of an Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation, and the mandate that it report no lower in the organization than directly to the new chief financial officer, is very sound.

There is another related function in the Department of Homeland Security that has been given a different placement by statute. That is the function of test and evaluation for developing homeland security priorities and for assessing specific technologies. Under section 302 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, the Under Secretary for Science and Technology within the Department of Homeland Security was given statutory missions for, among other things, "assessing and testing homeland security vulnerabilities and possible threats," "testing and evaluation activities that are relevant to any or all elements of the Department" and "coordinating and integrating all research, development, testing, and evaluation activities of the Department." It is crucial that these testing and evaluation functions remain under the management of the Under Secretary for Science and Technology, because they need strong scientific management and focus. We cannot afford to spend constrained Federal funds for homeland security on approaches or technologies that are not technically sound, or that are not cost-effective compared to other technologies.

I do not believe that there is an inherent conflict between the new statutory office created by this bill and the existing statutory assignments in the Homeland Security Act. Offices like the proposed Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation exist in several executive departments, and are generally more focused on assessing programmatic directions, outcomes, resources, and priorities. The test and evaluation function, in contrast, focuses more specifically on technical issues and relative technical merits. In the Department of Defense, for example, both functions are in distinct organizations that work together where appropriate to complement the different strengths and missions that each brings to the table. It would be my assumption that this is the outcome that Congress wants to see in the case of the Department of Homeland Security.

With this as background, I would like to ascertain from my colleagues, the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, if they agree with my understanding that the statutory creation of the new Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation is not meant to supersede or alter the testing and evaluation function that Congress has previously assigned to the Under Secretary of Homeland Security for Science and Technology.

Ms. COLLINS. The Senator is correct.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. The Senator is correct.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank my colleagues.