HR-9882-119
Referred to the Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Accountability.
Sponsored by Shri Thanedar (D-MI)
What it does
This bill would amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to require the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to maintain detailed documentation for all major acquisition programs — defined as those estimated to cost at least $300 million over their life-cycle. It would also require DHS to report to Congress within 30 days whenever a major acquisition program experiences a "breach," defined as a cost overrun exceeding 15%, a schedule delay of more than 180 days, or a failure to meet key performance thresholds. For breaches involving cost overruns above 20% or delays beyond 12 months, DHS would be required to submit a written determination assessing whether the program remains essential and whether alternatives exist.
Who benefits
Taxpayers broadly, who would gain greater assurance that large DHS contracts are tracked and reported. Congressional oversight committees (House and Senate Homeland Security committees), which would receive timely breach reports. Government accountability watchdogs and inspectors general who rely on standardized documentation. Smaller or competing contractors who may benefit if breach reports prompt DHS to reconsider or restructure failing programs. The Government Accountability Office (GAO), whose best practices would be codified as the standard for cost estimates and schedules.
Who is hurt
Large defense and homeland security contractors currently working on DHS programs who may face increased scrutiny, documentation burdens, and potential program cancellations triggered by breach reporting. DHS program managers and acquisition staff who would bear the administrative workload of maintaining and updating the required documentation. Components or offices within DHS that manage programs already experiencing cost or schedule problems, as mandatory reporting could accelerate political or budgetary pressure on those programs.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that DHS has a well-documented history of major acquisition failures — the GAO has repeatedly flagged DHS programs for cost overruns, schedule slippages, and inadequate documentation, with billions of dollars lost on programs like the Secure Border Initiative. They contend that codifying documentation standards and mandatory breach reporting into statute would give Congress the timely, structured information it needs to intervene before problems become catastrophic, replacing ad hoc oversight with a systematic accountability framework.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that layering additional statutory documentation requirements onto DHS acquisition programs could slow procurement timelines and increase administrative costs without meaningfully improving outcomes, since DHS already operates under existing acquisition regulations and GAO oversight. They contend that rigid breach-reporting thresholds and mandatory written determinations may incentivize program managers to manipulate baselines or delay acknowledging problems to avoid triggering reporting requirements, potentially undermining the transparency the bill seeks to achieve.
Constitutional context
No significant constitutional tension exists here. Congress has broad authority under Article I to set conditions on how executive agencies spend appropriated funds and to require reporting to the legislature. This bill falls squarely within Congress's power of the purse and its oversight authority over executive branch operations.
Checks and balances
Congress gains enhanced oversight authority by requiring DHS to report acquisition breaches within 30 days; the executive branch (DHS) retains operational control over acquisition programs but is subject to new statutory documentation and disclosure obligations enforceable through congressional oversight and appropriations leverage.
Historical precedent
The Nunn-McCurdy Act (1982, amended 2006) established a similar breach-reporting framework for Department of Defense major defense acquisition programs, requiring congressional notification and written justification when cost overruns exceed defined thresholds.